Toward Integration of mHealth in Primary Care in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives

Background: There is a growing need to structurally change the way chronic illness care is organized as health systems struggle to meet the demand for chronic care. mHealth technologies can alter traditional approaches to health care provision by stimulating self-management of chronically ill patients. The aim of this study was to understand the complex environment related to the introduction of mHealth solutions into primary care for chronic disease management while considering health system functioning and stakeholder views. Methods: A transdisciplinary approach was used informed by the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) methodology. Exploratory interviews (n = 5) were held with representatives of stakeholder groups to identify and position key stakeholders. Subsequently, professionals and chronically ill patients were consulted separately to elaborate on the barriers and facilitators in integration, using semi-structured interviews (n = 17) and a focus group (n = 6). Follow-up interviews (n = 5) were conducted to discuss initial findings of the stakeholder analysis. Results: Most stakeholders, in particular primary care practitioners and patients, seem to have a supporting or mixed attitude toward integration of mHealth. On the other hand, several powerful stakeholders, including primary care information system developers and medical specialists are likely to show resistance or a lack of initiative toward mHealth integration. Main barriers to mHealth integration were a lack of interoperability with existing information systems; difficulties in financing mHealth implementation; and limited readiness in general practices to change. Potential enablers of integration included co-design of mHealth solutions and incentives for pioneers. Conclusion: Stakeholders acknowledge the benefits of integrating mHealth in primary care. However, important barriers perceived by end-users prevent them to fully adopt and use mHealth. This study shows that the complexity of introducing mHealth into primary care calls for strategies encouraging collaboration between multiple stakeholders to enhance successful implementation

Integration of a personalized health care model into health systems and policies in Europe

Every day, we read about new scientifi¬c discoveries and technological advancements for health and medicine in the newspapers, such as: “Diabetes gene is found!” However, we don’t see this genome-based knowledge used in health services. Somehow, they don’t complete their journey from the laboratory to the society. This PhD dissertation deals with the integration of personalized health care applications into health services. It starts with setting the scene by describing health system and its interrelations with ‘public health’, which is presented in light of the 'Health for All' vision. The second part introduces a preventive personalized health care model called Gentest, within the wider context of the ¬field of personalized medicine and health care. This practice model is used as an example in this dissertation to effectively explore the issues related to integration. The third part investigates how this practice model can be integrated into primary care services within European health systems

Research and Innovation As a Catalyst For Food System Transformation

Background Food systems are associated with severe and persistent problems worldwide. Governance approaches aiming to foster sustainable transformation of food systems face several challenges due to the complex nature of food systems. Scope and approach In this commentary we argue that addressing these governance challenges requires the development and adoption of novel research and innovation (R&I) approaches that will provide evidence to inform food system transformation and will serve as catalysts for change. We first elaborate on the complexity of food systems (transformation) and stress the need to move beyond traditional linear R&I approaches to be able to respond to persistent problems that affect food systems. Though integrated transdisciplinary approaches are promising, current R&I systems do not sufficiently support such endeavors. As such, we argue, we need strategies that trigger a double transformation – of food systems and of their R&I systems. Key Findings and Conclusions Seizing the opportunities to transform R&I systems has implications for how research is done – pointing to the need for competence development among researchers, policy makers and society in general – and requires specific governance interventions that stimulate a systemic approach. Such interventions should foster transdisciplinary and transformative research agendas that stimulate portfolios of projects that will reinforce one another, and stimulate innovative experiments to shape conditions for systemic change. In short, a thorough rethinking of the role of R&I as well as how it is funded is a crucial step towards the development of the integrative policies that are necessary to engender systemic change – in the food system and beyond

Research and Innovation Supporting the Farm to Fork Strategy of the European Commission

The EU Think Tank (as part of the FIT4FOOD2030 Coordination andSupport Action) strongly supports the development of the Farm toFork Strategy as a key component of the European Green Deal,recognising the need to transform the food system as a whole

Key Research and Innovation Questions on Engaging Consumers in the Delivery of FOOD 2030

Food system transformation requires major changes in food consumption practices. Consumers could play central roles to stimulate these changes, which needs to be fully recognized. Multi-stakeholder R&I efforts should focus more on the interactions between individual, contextual and policy factors influencing consumption patterns, with specific attention to the dynamic character of food environments. Consumers should be empowered and engaged in decision making, through co-design, co-creation, co-implementation and co-assessment

Barriers to and facilitators of diabetes self-management practices in Rupandehi, Nepal- multiple stakeholders' perspective

BACKGROUND: Self-management of diabetes is associated with glycaemic control and adherence to medication and healthy lifestyle practices. There is lack of information on the barriers to and facilitators of diabetes self-management practices in low income country, Nepal. This study aimed to explore the barriers to and facilitators of Type 2 diabetes self-management practices taking multiple stakeholders' perspectives in Nepal. METHODS: Four focus group discussions and 16 semi-structured interviews with people with Type 2 diabetes, caregivers, health care providers and health managers were conducted from April to May 2018 in Rupandehi district of Western Nepal. They were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged that influenced diabetes self-management practices: individual factors, socio-cultural and economic factors, health system and policy factors, availability and accessibility of resources, and environmental factors. The important barriers were: lack of knowledge about diabetes self-management practices, cultural practices, insufficient counselling, lack of guidelines and protocols for counselling, and financial problems. The major facilitators were: motivation; support from family, peers, and doctors; and availability of resources in the community. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, a multilevel approach is needed to address these barriers and facilitators. These findings will help guide strategies to develop programs that impart knowledge and skills to improve the diabetes self-management practices of people with Type 2 diabetes

Other side of the coin for personalised medicine and healthcare: content analysis of ‘personalised’ practices in the literature

OBJECTIVES: Various terms and definitions are used to describe personalised approaches to medicine and healthcare, but in ambiguous and inconsistent ways. They mostly have been defined in a top-down manner. However, actual practices might take different paths. Here, we aimed to provide a ‘practice-based’ perspective on the debate by analysing the content of ‘personalised’ practices published in the literature. METHODS: The search in PubMed and EMBASE (April 2014) using the terms frequently used for personalised approaches resulted in 5333 records. 2 independent researchers used different strategies for screening, resulting in 157 articles describing 88 ‘personalised’ practices that were implemented/presented on at least 1 individual/patient case. The content analysis was grounded on these data and did not have a priori analytical frameworks. RESULTS: ‘Personalised medicine/healthcare’ can be a commodity in the healthcare market, a way how health services are provided, or a keyword for emerging applications. It can help individuals/patients to gain control of their health, health professionals to provide better services, healthcare organisations to increase effectiveness and efficiency, or national health systems to increase performance. Country examples indicated that for integration of practices into health services, attitude towards innovations and health system and policy context is important. Categorisation based on the terms or the technologies used, if any, was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to provide a comprehensive content analysis of the ‘personalised’ practices in the literature. Unlike the top-down definitions, our findings highlighted not the technologies but real-life issues faced by the practices. ‘Personalised medicine’ and ‘personalised healthcare’ can be differentiated by using the former for specific tools available and the latter for health services with a holistic approach, implemented in certain contexts. To realise integration of ‘personalised medicine/healthcare’ into real life, science, technology, health policy and practice, and society domains must work together