Cited by 115Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchHealth Policy Implementation Science

Understanding factors that inhibit or promote the utilization of telecare in chronic lung disease

Mair, Frances S., Hiscock, Julia, Beaton, Susan C.·2008·Chronic Illness

Abstract

Objectives: To perform a process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of home telecare for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), using the normalization process model (NPM) as an explanatory framework. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with patients ( n = 9) and nurses ( n = 11) participating in a RCT. A framework approach to data analysis was used. Results: The telecare service did not provide an interactional advantage for the nurses providing this service and did not fit with the nurses' views of the most appropriate or preferred use of their skills. The telecare service seemed unlikely to become normalized as part of routine healthcare delivery, because the nursing team lacked confidence that it was a safe way to provide healthcare in this context and it was not perceived as improving efficiency. Discussion: The NPM effectively mapped onto the study findings and explained those factors that inhibited the routine delivery of COPD services by telecare.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1742395308092482

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mair, F. S., Hiscock, J., & Beaton, S. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Venue
Chronic Illness
Published
2008-06
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
110-117
ISSN
  • 1742-3953 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9206
OpenAlex
W2115812316
Cited by
115
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Chronic Illness (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
telehomecare, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute exacerbation, process evaluation, nurses' perceptions, patient perspectives, health care delivery
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Communication Barriers, Equipment Design, Home Care Services, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Models, Theoretical, Nurse-Patient Relations, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Sick Role, Telemedicine, Nurse's Role, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review