This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (1326) Demographics of Users, Social & Digital Divide (760) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (1713) mHealth for Telemedicine and Homecare (418) mHealth for Wellness, Behavior Change and Prevention (2922)

Published on in Vol 25 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/41768, first published .
Factors That Influence the Use of eHealth in Home Care: Scoping Review and Cross-sectional Survey

Factors That Influence the Use of eHealth in Home Care: Scoping Review and Cross-sectional Survey

Factors That Influence the Use of eHealth in Home Care: Scoping Review and Cross-sectional Survey

Authors of this article:

Elke Mathijssen1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Wendela de Lange1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Nienke Bleijenberg2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Thijs van Houwelingen4 Author Orcid Image ;   Tiny Jaarsma2, 5 Author Orcid Image ;   Jaap Trappenburg1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Heleen Westland2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (5) Tweetations (4) Metrics

    Original Paper

    1The Healthcare Innovation Center, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

    2Department of Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

    3Research Group Proactive Care for Older People Living at Home, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

    4Research Group Technology for Innovations in Healthcare, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

    5Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Corresponding Author:

    Elke Mathijssen, PhD

    The Healthcare Innovation Center

    Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care

    University Medical Center Utrecht

    Heidelberglaan 100

    Utrecht, 3584CX

    Netherlands

    Phone: 31 627247920

    Email: E.G.E.Mathijssen-2@umcutrecht.nl


    Background: In home care, eHealth implementation requires health care professionals and home care clients to change their behavior because they have to incorporate the use of eHealth into their daily routines. Knowledge of factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care is needed to optimize implementation strategies. However, a comprehensive overview of such factors is lacking.

    Objective: The aims of this study were to (1) provide insight into the types of eHealth that are used and preferred in home care and (2) identify factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care according to health care professionals and home care clients.

    Methods: A scoping review and online, cross-sectional survey were conducted sequentially. The survey was conducted among Dutch health care professionals with a nursing background who were working for a home care organization at the time. The capability, opportunity, motivation, behavior (COM-B) model, which posits that for any behavior (B) to occur, a person must have the capability (C), opportunity (O), and motivation (M) to perform the behavior, was used to identify influencing factors. The use of a theoretical model may contribute to a better understanding of how to achieve and sustain behavior change in clinical practice.

    Results: We included 30 studies in the scoping review. The most frequently studied type of eHealth was a telecommunication/telemonitoring system. The survey was completed by 102 participants. The most frequently used types of eHealth were electronic health records, social alarms, and online client portals. A health app was the most frequently preferred type of eHealth. We identified 22 factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care according to health care professionals and home care clients. Influencing factors were organized into the components of the COM-B model, namely capability (n=6), opportunity (n=10), and motivation (n=6). We found that there is no single influencing factor that is key to the complexity of eHealth implementation.

    Conclusions: Different types of eHealth are used, and many types of eHealth are preferred by health care professionals. The identified factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care relate to all components of the COM-B model. These factors need to be addressed and embedded in implementation strategies of eHealth to optimize the use of eHealth in home care.

    J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e41768

    doi:10.2196/41768

    Keywords

    eHealth; digital health; mHealth; mobile applications; telehealth; telemedicine; telecare; implementation; influencing factors; home care 


    Driven by an aging population and rising number of people with one or more chronic conditions, health care systems are moving away from institutional care toward home care [1-4]. Home care, defined as all nursing care provided by nurses and nurse assistants at people’s homes, has proven to be a lower-cost alternative to institutional care in the long term [5]. Furthermore, home care clients experience a higher quality of life than people living in institutional care [6,7]. At the same time, home care faces challenges to keep up with its continued growth, with staffing shortages being the most prominent challenge [8,9].

    These challenges are an important driver behind the proliferation of eHealth in home care. eHealth refers to the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in support of health and health-related fields [10]. Well-known examples of eHealth are electronic health records, online client portals, and health apps. There is a large body of evidence showing the potential of eHealth to significantly contribute to the efficacy, safety, and quality of care [11-14]. However, its use in clinical practice remains limited due to implementation difficulties, including a lack of understanding of what works and does not work in the health care environment in which eHealth is to be implemented [15-17].

    In home care, eHealth implementation requires health care professionals and home care clients to change their behavior because they have to incorporate the use of eHealth into their daily routines. Knowledge of factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care is needed to optimize implementation strategies. However, a comprehensive overview of such factors is lacking. Previous studies have provided an incomplete picture by focusing only on a specific type of eHealth (eg, electronic medication dispensers) or subgroup of users (eg, people with dementia) [18,19]. Furthermore, these studies did not use a theoretical model of behavior change. The use of a theoretical model may contribute to a better understanding of how to achieve and sustain behavior change in clinical practice. A wide variety of theoretical models has been developed. Many of these models focus on understanding or predicting intra-individual behavior and occasionally interpersonal factors of behavior rather than understanding behavior change in complex environments in which the behavior occurs [20,21].

    In this study, we used the capability, opportunity, motivation, behavior (COM-B) model to identify factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care. The COM-B model posits that, for any behavior (B) to occur, a person must have the capability (C), opportunity (O), and motivation (M) to perform the behavior [22]. Therefore, the components of the COM-B model (capability, opportunity, and motivation) may serve as targets for behavior change interventions [22]. The aims of this study were to (1) provide insight into the types of eHealth that are used and preferred in home care and (2) identify factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care according to health care professionals and home care clients.


    Design

    A scoping review and online, cross-sectional survey were conducted sequentially to provide insight into the types of eHealth that are used and preferred in home care and identify factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care according to health care professionals and home care clients. The results of the scoping review informed the development of the survey, which provided more detailed data from the perspective of health care professionals in the Netherlands. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) were used to guide the reporting of this study [23,24].

    Ethical Considerations

    This study did not fall under the scope of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). It therefore did not require approval from an accredited medical ethics committee in the Netherlands. Web-based informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to study participation. All study data were deidentified to protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants. 

    Scoping Review

    The 5 stages of the methodological framework for scoping reviews by Arksey and O’Malley [25] and additional recommendations from Levac et al [26] were followed: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

    Stage 1: Identifying the Research Question

    Corresponding to the aims of this study, the research questions were “What types of eHealth are used and preferred in home care?” and “What factors influence the use of eHealth in home care according to health care professionals and home care clients?”

    Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Studies

    The databases PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were initially searched in January 2020, and an update was conducted in April 2021. The PubMed syntax was developed first and then adapted for the other databases (Multimedia Appendix 1). Reference lists of studies found through the database search were hand-searched, and grey literature was searched for unpublished research to ensure completion. The searches were limited to studies published from January 2012. The choice for this date safeguarded the generalizability of our results, as research on eHealth has evolved significantly in recent years. Additionally, studies had to be reported in Dutch or English with full text available.

    Stage 3: Study Selection

    The search results were imported into the online screening tool Rayyan [27]. Duplicates were removed. Studies were screened on title and abstract by 2 researchers (EM and WdL) independently. Each study was assigned a label of “include,” “exclude,” or “undecided.” Studies labeled as “undecided” and discrepancies between the researchers were resolved through a consensus discussion. Subsequently, the full texts of studies labeled as “include” were assessed for eligibility against a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria by 2 researchers (EM and WdL) independently. Studies were included if they were conducted among health care professionals or adult (>18 years old) home care clients. They also had to have outcomes on experiences with or barriers and facilitators to the use of eHealth in home care. We excluded studies set in specialized care (eg, mental health services), hospital-at-home programs, or non-Western countries. Nonempirical, intervention, or n of 1 studies were also excluded.

    Stage 4: Charting the Data

    A data chart was developed by the research team to extract the first author, year of publication, country, design, participants, type of eHealth, and results for each study. Additionally, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal [28]. Two researchers (EM and WdL) extracted part of the data and checked each other’s work. A consensus meeting was held to resolve discrepancies between the researchers.

    Stage 5: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

    We singled out relevant data using the data chart. Influencing factors were organized into the components of the COM-B model, namely capability, opportunity, and motivation. This was done by 3 researchers (EM, WdL, and HW) during joint work sessions.

    Survey

    The survey was conducted from June 2020 to August 2020 among Dutch health care professionals with a nursing background who were working for a home care organization at the time. A convenience sampling approach was used to recruit participants through the online newsletter of the Dutch nurses’ association. Additionally, the professional network of the research team was used to recruit participants by email and social media. Participants were encouraged to share the survey with colleagues.

    The survey was developed by 3 researchers (EM, WdL, and HW) using the results of the scoping review’s initial search in January 2020. We formulated 20 questions with close and open-ended response formats (Multimedia Appendix 2). Participants had to answer each question to continue through the survey. Qualtrics version 2020 (Qualtrics) was used to place the survey online. The research team pretested the survey to check for potential issues with the questions and response formats or technical glitches. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Participants who did not complete the survey were excluded from the analysis. Close-ended questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics, using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corporation). Open-ended questions were analyzed descriptively to enrich the quantitative data. The survey was anonymous. We did not collect personal data such as names and addresses. Data were handled according to the Dutch implementation act of the General Data Protection Regulation.


    Scoping Review

    The results of the initial search in January 2020 and update in April 2021 were merged. The results of the update affirmed those of the initial search and did not provide any new insights. In total, 30 studies were included [19,29-57]. Figure 1 shows a flow diagram of the study selection process.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.

    Study Characteristics

    The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (8/30, 27%), Norway (7/30, 23%), or the Netherlands (6/30, 20%). The studies had a quantitative (5/30, 17%), qualitative (19/30, 63%), or mixed methods (6/30, 20%) design. Participants were health care professionals (17/30, 57%), home care clients (6/30, 20%), or both (7/30, 23%). Table 1 shows an overview of the studies’ characteristics. All criteria in the MMAT were met by 1 study with a quantitative design, 14 studies with a qualitative design, and 1 study with a mixed methods design (Multimedia Appendix 3).

    Table 1. An overview of the studies’ characteristics.
    First author (year of publication)CountryDesignAimParticipantsType of eHealth
    Peeters (2012) [42]The NetherlandsQuantitative(1) To gain insight into individual client characteristics and characteristics of home telecare, which influence the adoption of home telecare by older or chronically ill clients of home care organizations in the Netherlands or (2) To examine the applicability of Rogers’ concept of “perceived attributes” in explaining the factors that might influence the decision to adopt home telecareHome care clientsTelecommunication/telemonitoring
    Postema (2012) [43]The NetherlandsQualitativeTo determine which factors influence the success of the implementation of video communication as a home telecare application from an organizational perspectiveHealth care professionals and home care clientsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Radhakrishnan (2012) [47]United StatesQualitative(1) To explore perceptions on effectiveness of telehealth for heart failure (HF) management and (2) to explore facilitators and barriers to continued use of telehealth by patients with HF and their nurses beyond the initial acceptance phase in a home care settingHealth care professionals and home care clientsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Brody (2013) [49]United StatesMixed methodsTo examine the feasibility of a web-based education program to help nurses improve their treatment of geriatric pain and depressionHealth care professionalsOnline education program
    Nielsen (2013) [41]DenmarkMixed methodsTo examine a large-scale government-sponsored mobile health implementation program in the Danish home care sector and to understand how the technology was used differently across home care agenciesHealth care professionalsHealth app
    Alaiad (2014) [39]United StatesQuantitativeTo understand the determinants of home health care robot adoption from social, technical and managerial aspects by applying technology acceptance theoriesHealth care professionals and home care clientsMedical robot
    Sockolow (2014) [40]United StatesMixed methodsTo identify challenges and facilitators to electronic health record (EHR) adoption to inform EHR development and implementationHealth care professionalsEHR
    Cai (2015) [36]DenmarkQualitativeTo explore how health professionals experience and use the intelligent bed in patients’ homesHealth care professionalsIntelligent bed
    van Houwelingen (2015) [38]The NetherlandsQuantitativeTo examine predictors of Dutch nurses’ willingness to use home telecareHealth care professionalsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Peek (2016) [48]The NetherlandsQualitativeTo provide insight into the positions of stakeholder groups involved in the implementation of technology for aging in placeHealth care professionals and home care clientsNot specified or multiple types of eHealth
    Radhakrishnan (2016) [37]United StatesMixed methods(1) To explore the reasons for the initial adoption and the eventual decline of a decade-long home telehealth program at a Texas home health agency and (2) to explore barriers to and facilitators for sustaining home telehealth programsHealth care professionalsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Stokke (2017) [44]NorwayQualitativeTo explore how actors who are involved with the social alarm, which is an established technology innovation, relate to, perceive, and articulate the expectations of the technology in everyday livingHome care clientsSocial alarm
    Göransson (2018) [35]SwedenQualitativeTo explore the experiences of using an app for reporting health concerns among older people with home-based health care and their home care nursesHealth care professionals and home care clientsHealth app
    Nakrem (2018) [52]NorwayQualitativeTo explore how home health care professionals experienced the introduction of digital medicine dispensers and their influence on patient-caregiver relationshipsHealth care professionalsElectronic medication dispenser
    Øyen (2018) [45]NorwayQuantitativeTo better understand nurses’ and other staff members’ attitudes toward the usefulness of information and communication technology in home careHealth care professionalsNot specified or multiple types of eHealth
    van Doorn-van Atten (2019) [50]The NetherlandsMixed methodsTo evaluate the feasibility of a telemonitoring intervention to improve the nutritional status of community-dwelling older adultsHealth care professionals and home care clientsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Funderskov (2019) [33]DenmarkQualitativeTo explore the advantages and disadvantages of using video consultations, as experienced by specialized palliative care health care professionals who are involved in palliative care at homeHealth care professionalsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Ibrahim (2019) [46]CanadaQualitativeTo explore nurses\' experiences with electronic documentation system usage in the home care sectorHealth care professionalsEHR
    Johannessen (2019) [31]NorwayQualitativeTo explore home care professionals\' perceptions of
    safety related to the use of telecare by older adults    		Health care professionalsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Karlsen (2019) [51]NorwayQualitativeTo obtain a deeper understanding of the persistent use of telecare for older adults and their family caregiversHome care clientsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Kozikowski (2019) [29]United StatesQualitativeTo gain insight into the perspectives of home-based primary care (HBPC) staff regarding adopting telehealth technology to increase the reach of HBPC to more homebound patients.Health care professionalsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Rosborg (2019) [30]SwedenQualitativeTo study different mobile health (mHealth) tools used in both countries and try and possibly improve mHealth tools and how they contribute to health care deliveryHealth care professionalsHealth app
    Rydenfält (2019) [34]SwedenQualitativeTo gain a broader understanding of how eHealth currently can be used in home care nursing and how home care nursing providers imagine its future potentialHealth care professionalsNot specified or multiple types of eHealth
    Seto (2019) [32]CanadaQualitativeTo determine the feasibility of implementing a mobile phone–based telemonitoring system through a home care nursing agency and to explore the feasibility of conducting a future effectiveness trialHealth care professionals and home care clientsHealth app
    Glomsås (2020) [56]NorwayQualitativeTo learn more about factors that promote or inhibit user involvement among health professionals when implementing welfare technology in home care servicesHealth care professionalsNot specified or multiple types of eHealth
    Kivekäs (2020) [55]FinlandQuantitativeTo describe the factors that determine a user’s intent to adopt new welfare technologies in the context of home careHealth care professionalsNot specified or multiple types of eHealth
    Woo (2020) [57]United StatesQualitativeTo investigate factors that affect the decision to adopt or decline telehealth at home among patients with HFHome care clientsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    Birkhoff (2021) [53]United StatesMixed methods(1) To explore the facilitators of and challenges with HF patients’ ability to use and potentially adopt a virtual nurse visit (VNV) and (2) to assess their satisfaction and experiences using the VNV in conjunction with traditional in-person home care nursing visitsHome care clientsTelecommunication/telemonitoring system
    van der Cingel (2021) [54]The NetherlandsQualitativeTo get insight into the way home care nurses assess eHealth interventions during assessment of careHealth care professionalsNot specified or multiple types of eHealth
    Glomsås (2021) [19]NorwayQualitativeTo explore elderly service users’ experience with user involvement in the implementation and everyday use of welfare technology in public home care servicesHome care clientsNot specified or multiple types of eHealth

    Survey

    The survey was completed by 102 participants. Their characteristics are shown in Table 2.

    Table 2. Characteristics of the participants (n=102).
    CharacteristicsResults
    Age (years), mean (SD)43 (12)
    Gender, n (%)

    		Male8 (7.8)

    		Female93 (91.2)

    		Not specified1 (1)
    Profession, n (%)

    		Nurse assistant (NLQFa 3)11 (10.8)

    		Vocational level nurse (NLQF 4)16 (15.7)

    		Bachelor level nurse (NLQF 6)58 (56.9)

    		Nurse practitioner (NLQF 7)1 (1)

    		Other (eg, nursing student, quality officer, team manager)15 (14.7)
    Work experience (years), mean (SD)9.7 (9)

    aNLQF: Dutch qualifications framework.

    What Types of eHealth Are Used and Preferred in Home Care?

    The scoping review included studies on 8 different types of eHealth (Table 1). The most frequently studied type of eHealth was a telecommunication/telemonitoring system (12/30, 40%) [29,31,33,37,38,42,43,47,50,51,53,57]. Other studied types of eHealth were a health app (n=4) [30,32,35,41], electronic health record (n=2) [40,46], electronic medication dispenser (n=1) [52], social alarm (n=1) [44], medical robot (n=1) [39], intelligent bed (n=1) [36], and online education program (n=1) [49]; 7 studies did not specify the type of eHealth under study or studied multiple types of eHealth [19,34,45,48,54-56].

    In the survey, the majority of the participants (94/102, 92.1%) indicated that eHealth is currently used within their organization. The most frequently used types of eHealth were electronic health records (92/102, 90.2%), social alarms (83/102, 81.4%), and online client portals (76/102, 74.5%). Most of the participants (78/102, 76.5%) preferred more use of eHealth within their organization. A health app was the most frequently preferred type of eHealth (55/102, 53.9%). Table 3 shows the types of eHealth that were used and preferred by the participants.

    Table 3. The types of eHealth that were used and preferred by the participants (n=102).
    Type of eHealthaUsed, n (%)Preferred, n (%)
    Electronic health record92 (90.2)3 (2.9)
    Social alarm83 (81.4)1 (1)
    Online client portal76 (74.5)8 (7.8)
    Email and/or chat consultations55 (53.9)13 (12.7)
    Electronic medication dispenser52 (51)26 (25.5)
    Video consultations46 (45.1)39 (38.2)
    Electronic door lock17 (16.7)30 (29.4)
    (Portable) sensor17 (16.7)33 (32.3)
    Health app12 (11.8)55 (53.9)
    Medical robot11 (10.8)34 (33.3)
    Not applicable3 (2.9)9 (8.8)
    Otherb0 (0)4 (3.9)

    aMultiple answers were allowed.

    bNot specified.

    What Factors Influence the Use of eHealth in Home Care?

    We identified 22 influencing factors and organized these into the components of the COM-B model (capability, opportunity, and motivation; Figure 2).

    ‎
    Figure 2. Influencing factors categorized into the COM-B model.
    Capability

    We identified 6 factors that influence health care professionals’ and home care clients’ capability to use eHealth in home care: (1) digital skills of health care professionals, (2) digital skills of home care clients, (3) physical limitations of home care clients, (4) cognitive limitations of home care clients, (5) sociodemographic characteristics of home care clients, and (6) clinical characteristics of home care clients.

    The scoping review showed that health care professionals and home care clients who have sufficient digital skills are more capable of using eHealth than the ones who have not [37,45-47,50,52-54,56,57]. Furthermore, physical limitations of home care clients may negatively influence their capability to use eHealth [32,47]. The same applies to cognitive limitations of home care clients [19,37,44,47,50]. Regarding sociodemographic characteristics of home care clients, the studies mainly focused on age [37,42,47,50]. Older age is associated with a decreased capability to use eHealth. A longer disease duration and higher disease activity were described in the studies as clinical characteristics of home care clients that may negatively influence their capability to use eHealth [37,47,54].

    The survey showed that most of the participants (60/102, 58.8%) considered their knowledge and skills to use eHealth sufficient. The vast majority of the participants (84/102, 82.4%) considered themselves fast learners when it comes to the use of eHealth, and 18.6% (19/102) of the participants indicated that they were provided with sufficient training on eHealth during their professional education. Most of the participants (59/102, 57.8%) indicated that they had a current need for training on eHealth. According to 90.2% (92/102) of the participants, some home care clients are not capable of using eHealth. People with dementia were often cited as an example. However, the participants stressed that the capability to use eHealth is determined individually.

    Opportunity

    We identified 10 factors that influence the opportunity of health care professionals and home care clients to use eHealth in home care: (1) user-friendliness, (2) technical stability, (3) data security and privacy, (4) facilitating conditions, (5) training for health care professionals, (6) alignment with work processes of health care professionals, (7) alignment with organizational policies, (8) alignment with home care clients’ daily lives, (9) financial costs, and (10) implementation strategies.

    The scoping review showed that user-friendliness and technical stability of a type of eHealth are preconditions for use [19,30-35,37,38,40-43,46-52,54,56,57]. Furthermore, data security and privacy must be considered from the very outset [36,37,39,48]. Facilitating conditions (eg, the provision of resources such as computers, tablets, and smartphones) and training for health care professionals may positively influence health care professionals’ opportunity to use eHealth [36,37,39,40,43-48,50,54-57]. Health care professionals’ and home care clients’ opportunity to use eHealth increases if the use of eHealth aligns with work processes of health care professionals and organizational policies [29,30,32-34,37,40-44,47-49,52,56]. The same applies to alignment with home care clients’ daily lives [19,32,37,42,43,52]. Financial costs may negatively influence their opportunity to use eHealth [34,40,41,43,48,54]. Regarding implementation strategies, the studies mainly focused on the importance of involving health care professionals and home care clients in the implementation phase of new types of eHealth [34,36,37,40,41,43,47-50,56].

    In the survey, 34.3% (35/102) of the participants indicated that the amount of types of eHealth that were currently available was sufficient. Most of the participants (68/102, 66.7%) indicated that they encountered problems with the use of eHealth. Technical issues and financial costs were at the top of the list (51/102, 50% and 36/102, 35.3%, respectively). Of the participants, 34.3% (35/102) indicated that their organization encouraged employees “always” or “often” to use eHealth, and 48% (49/102) of the participants indicated that their organization was “always” or “often” open to initiatives by employees regarding the use of eHealth. Furthermore, 40.2% (41/102) of the participants indicated that their organization “always” or “often” involved employees in the implementation phase of new types of eHealth, and 23.5% (24/102) of the participants indicated that their organization “always” or “often” involved home care clients in the implementation phase of new types of eHealth.

    Motivation

    We identified 6 factors that influence health care professionals’ and home care clients’ motivation to use eHealth in home care: (1) attitudes of health care professionals, (2) attitudes of home care clients, (3) added value for health care professionals, (4) added value for the provision of care, (5) added value for home care clients, and (6) social support and peer pressure.

    The scoping review showed that attitudes of health care professionals and home care clients are shaped by their beliefs and prior experiences regarding eHealth [35-41,43,44,46-48,52-54,57]. Health care professionals and home care clients who have positive beliefs and prior experiences regarding eHealth are more motivated to use eHealth than those who have not. Health care professionals’ motivation to use eHealth increases if the use of eHealth is of added value for them (eg, increased work efficiency) [29,32-37,40-42,46,47,49,52]. It is also motivating for health care professionals if the use of eHealth is of added value for the provision of health care (eg, decreased health care utilization) and home care clients (eg, increased safety) [19,29,31-33,35-39,41-45,47,48,50-55]. Furthermore, health care professionals’ and home care clients’ motivation to use eHealth may increase or decrease due to social support and peer pressure [37,39,44,47,51,57]. For example, health care professionals are more motivated to use eHealth when they see their colleagues doing so.

    The survey showed that most of the participants (69/102, 67.6%) thought that the use of eHealth had more benefits than drawbacks. The majority of the participants (90/102, 88.2%) thought that the use of eHealth saved time and costs. Of the participants, 70.6% (72/102) thought that the use of eHealth increased the overall quality of care. Furthermore, they thought that the use of eHealth increased home care clients’ self-reliance and safety (93/102, 91.2% and 87/102, 85.3%, respectively). Of the participants, 61.8% (63/102) thought that the use of eHealth did not compromise personal contact between health care professionals and home care clients. Most (74/102, 72.5%) of the participants (completely) agreed with the statement “I have confidence in the advent of new types of eHealth.” Correspondingly, 69.6% (71/102) of the participants indicated that they were not afraid of losing their job or job activities due to the advent of new types of eHealth. In addition, 7.8% (8/102) of the participants (completely) agreed with the statement “I am not looking forward to the advent of new types of eHealth,” and 26.5% (27/102) of the participants (completely) agreed with the statement “Home care clients are not looking forward to the advent of new types of eHealth.” The participants stressed that the use of eHealth should never be made an obligation for home care clients.


    Principal Findings

    The aims of this study were to provide insight into the used and preferred types of eHealth in home care and identify factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care according to health care professionals and home care clients. Our results show that different types of eHealth such as electronic health records, social alarms, and online client portals are used in home care. However, there are also many preferred types of eHealth in home care (eg, health apps). This indicates that there is substantial room for improvement when it comes to eHealth implementation. We identified 22 factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care according to health care professionals and home care clients. We found that there is no single influencing factor that is key to the complexity of eHealth implementation. Influencing factors relate to all components of the COM-B model (ie, capability, opportunity, and motivation), which interact to generate behavior. Therefore, factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care can be considered diffuse and intertwined.

    Comparisons With Prior Work

    Our results compare with those of studies on factors that influence the use of eHealth in other settings than home care. Influencing factors that were identified in a review of reviews by Lau et al [58] in primary care are among others providing evidence of benefit, facilitating conditions, and costs. Comparable results were found in a review of reviews by Ross et al [59] and a systematic review with expert discussions by Schreiweis et al [60]. Both studies were not limited to a particular setting. The comparability of results between studies indicates that influencing factors are generalizable across settings. In this study, no influencing factors unique to home care were identified. Furthermore, our results show that factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care remain considerably constant over time. Indeed, we found little to no variation between the results of the studies included in the scoping review despite publication years ranging from 2012 to 2021.

    In the survey, the participants stressed that the use of eHealth should always be a free choice instead of an obligation for home care clients. This fits with the fundamentals of person-centered care in which an individual is put centrally and his or her needs, preferences, and values are the driving force of all health care decisions [61]. Previous studies have shown that eHealth has the potential to support person-centered care [62-64]. For example, electronic health records, online client portals, and health apps may provide home care clients with reliable and timely health information and empower them to take an active role in their own care. Other types of eHealth such as telecommunication/telemonitoring systems may facilitate a trusting professional care relationship. However, the belief that the use of eHealth compromises personal contact between health care professional and home care clients is common. Health care professionals generally strive to work in a person-centered way [54]. Therefore, it is important to provide them with evidence regarding eHealth’s potential to support person-centered care. This may contribute to higher adoption rates.

    A qualitative study by Korpershoek et al [65] in the field of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease showed that eHealth is more readily accepted when tailored to individual needs, which stresses the importance of personalization over a one-size-fits-all approach. Therefore, the involvement of health care professionals and home care clients in the implementation phase of new types of eHealth is indispensable. Our results show that this rarely happens today. To enhance the use of eHealth in home care, we suggest, for starters, that home care organizations listen to the needs of the intended users and then translate what is heard into implementation strategies. The use of theory-based implementation instruments (eg, the eHealth Implementation Toolkit) may facilitate the involvement of health care professionals and home care clients in the implementation phase of new types of eHealth [66]. Additionally, influencing factors should be targeted when developing behavior change interventions and organizational policies. Linking the COM-B model to the Behavior Change Wheel by Michie et al [22] allows for a systematic approach to transit influencing factors to behavior change interventions and organizational policies that are likely to be effective in achieving and sustaining behavior change in clinical practice.

    Strengths and Limitations

    This study was carefully designed and conducted. We applied several methods to enhance its quality such as the use of reporting checklists; a comprehensive search strategy; and dual, independent screening for the study selection process. An extensive search of the literature indicated that this study is the first to use the COM-B model to identify factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care. We considered the use of an established theoretical underpinning from the behavior change literature as an important strength. Although the COM-B model was initially applied to intervention design, it is now increasingly applied as a solid synthesis framework by studies in various contexts [67,68]. Our study confirms that the COM-B model can be applied as such. There are also some limitations that need to be considered. Despite our attempt to be as inclusive as possible, the scoping review may have missed some relevant studies due to language restrictions. Furthermore, many types of eHealth are commercially developed and marketed. The literature was limited to those that have undergone scientific evaluation.

    The survey was completed by health care professionals with a diverse nursing educational background, including nurse assistants, nurses with a vocational or bachelor’s degree, and nurse practitioners within the specific context of the Dutch home care system. These results reflect the Dutch context; however, the generalizability of these results might be limited to home care in countries with a similar home care system. Moreover, the focus of this study was largely on the perspective of health care professionals. Future studies with a larger focus on the perspective of home care clients are warranted to expose this key stakeholder’s voice.

    Conclusions

    In home care, different types of eHealth are used, and many types of eHealth are preferred by health care professionals. We identified 22 factors that influence the use of eHealth in home care and organized these factors into the components of the COM-B model. Influencing factors relate to all components of the COM-B model, including capability, opportunity, and motivation. Factors intertwine, and no factor is key to cover the complexity of eHealth implementation. To optimize the use of eHealth in home care, these factors need to be addressed and embedded in implementation strategies of eHealth in home care.

    Acknowledgments

    This study resulted from funding from ZonMw (project number 516004032). ZonMw did not play any role in the study conception and design, collection of data, analysis and interpretation of data, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Authors' Contributions

    All authors contributed to study conception and design, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. EM, WdL, and HW collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PubMed syntax.

    DOCX File , 15 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Original Dutch survey.

    DOCX File , 22 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Quality appraisal.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 15 KB
    1. Ageing and health. World Health Organization. 2022 Oct 1.   URL: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health [accessed 2023-02-15]
    2. Fabbri E, Zoli M, Gonzalez-Freire M, Salive ME, Studenski SA, Ferrucci L. Aging and multimorbidity: new tasks, priorities, and frontiers for integrated gerontological and clinical research. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2015 Aug 01;16(8):640-647 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Hajat C, Stein E. The global burden of multiple chronic conditions: A narrative review. Prev Med Rep 2018 Dec;12:284-293 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Vasunilashorn S, Steinman BA, Liebig PS, Pynoos J. Aging in place: evolution of a research topic whose time has come. J Aging Res 2012;2012:120952-120956 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Hollander MJ, Chappell NL. A comparative analysis of costs to government for home care and long-term residential care services, standardized for client care needs. Can J Aging 2007 Mar 31;26 Suppl 1(S1):149-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Nikmat AW, Al-Mashoor SH, Hashim NA. Quality of life in people with cognitive impairment: nursing homes versus home care. Int. Psychogeriatr 2014 Dec 11;27(5):815-824. [CrossRef]
    7. Olsen C, Pedersen I, Bergland A, Enders-Slegers M, Jøranson N, Calogiuri G, et al. Differences in quality of life in home-dwelling persons and nursing home residents with dementia - a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr 2016 Jul 11;16(1):137 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Carter A. Nursing shortage predicted to be hardest on home healthcare. Home Healthc Nurse 2009 Mar;27(3):198. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Maurits EEM, de Veer AJE, Groenewegen PP, Francke AL. Attractiveness of people-centred and integrated Dutch Home Care: A nationwide survey among nurses. Health Soc Care Community 2018 Jul 05;26(4):e523-e531. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. eHealth. World Health Organization.   URL: https://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/ehealth [accessed 2023-02-15]
    11. Eland-de Kok P, van Os-Medendorp H, Vergouwe-Meijer A, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C, Ros W. A systematic review of the effects of e-health on chronically ill patients. J Clin Nurs 2011 Nov;20(21-22):2997-3010. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Elbert NJ, van Os-Medendorp H, van Renselaar W, Ekeland AG, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Raat H, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res 2014 Apr 16;16(4):e110 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Lancaster K, Abuzour A, Khaira M, Mathers A, Chan A, Bui V, et al. The use and effects of electronic health tools for patient self-monitoring and reporting of outcomes following medication use: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2018 Dec 18;20(12):e294 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Beratarrechea A, Lee AG, Willner JM, Jahangir E, Ciapponi A, Rubinstein A. The impact of mobile health interventions on chronic disease outcomes in developing countries: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 2014 Jan;20(1):75-82 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Granja C, Janssen W, Johansen MA. Factors determining the success and failure of eHealth interventions: systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2018 May 01;20(5):e10235 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Voogt MP, Opmeer BC, Kastelein AW, Jaspers MWM, Peute LW. Obstacles to successful implementation of eHealth applications into clinical practice. Stud Health Technol Inform 2018;247:521-525. [Medline]
    17. Daivadanam M, Ingram M, Sidney Annerstedt K, Parker G, Bobrow K, Dolovich L, GACD Concepts and Contexts working group. The role of context in implementation research for non-communicable diseases: Answering the 'how-to' dilemma. PLoS One 2019 Apr 8;14(4):e0214454 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Bastoni S, Wrede C, da Silva MC, Sanderman R, Gaggioli A, Braakman-Jansen A, et al. Factors influencing implementation of eHealth technologies to support informal dementia care: umbrella review. JMIR Aging 2021 Oct 08;4(4):e30841 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Glomsås HS, Knutsen IR, Fossum M, Halvorsen K. 'They just came with the medication dispenser'- a qualitative study of elderly service users' involvement and welfare technology in public home care services. BMC Health Serv Res 2021 Mar 19;21(1):245 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Michie S, West R, Campbell R, Brown J, Gainforth H. ABC of Behaviour Change Theories: An Essential Resource for Researchers, Policy Makers and Practitioners. Surrey, UK: Silverback Publishing; 2014.
    21. Kok G, Schaalma H, Ruiter RAC, van Empelen P, Brug J. Intervention mapping: protocol for applying health psychology theory to prevention programmes. J Health Psychol 2004 Jan;9(1):85-98. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011 Apr 23;6(1):42 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018 Oct 02;169(7):467-473 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2005 Feb;8(1):19-32. [CrossRef]
    26. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010 Sep 20;5(1):69 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016 Dec 05;5(1):210 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud 2012 Jan;49(1):47-53. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Kozikowski A, Shotwell J, Wool E, Slaboda JC, Abrashkin KA, Rhodes K, et al. Care team perspectives and acceptance of telehealth in scaling a home-based primary care program: qualitative study. JMIR Aging 2019 Jun 02;2(1):e12415 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Rosborg S, Lindberg M, Ramukumba M, Jäderlund Hagstedt L, Hägglund M. Exploring mHealths fit to workflow in homecare - a case study in Sweden. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019 Aug 09;265:54-59. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Johannessen TB, Storm M, Holm AL. Safety for older adults using telecare: Perceptions of homecare professionals. Nurs Open 2019 Jul;6(3):1254-1261 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Seto E, Morita PP, Tomkun J, Lee TM, Ross H, Reid-Haughian C, et al. Implementation of a heart failure telemonitoring system in home care nursing: feasibility study. JMIR Med Inform 2019 Jul 26;7(3):e11722 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Funderskov KF, Boe Danbjørg D, Jess M, Munk L, Olsen Zwisler A, Dieperink KB. Telemedicine in specialised palliative care: Healthcare professionals' and their perspectives on video consultations-A qualitative study. J Clin Nurs 2019 Nov 09;28(21-22):3966-3976. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Rydenfält C, Persson J, Erlingsdottir G, Johansson G. eHealth services in the near and distant future in Swedish home care nursing. Comput Inform Nurs 2019 Jul;37(7):366-372. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Göransson C, Eriksson I, Ziegert K, Wengström Y, Langius-Eklöf A, Brovall M, et al. Testing an app for reporting health concerns-Experiences from older people and home care nurses. Int J Older People Nurs 2018 Jun 05;13(2):e12181. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Cai H, Toft E, Hejlesen O, Hansen J, Oestergaard C, Dinesen B. Health professionals’ user experience of the intelligent bed in patients’ homes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2015 Aug 21;31(4):256-263. [CrossRef]
    37. Radhakrishnan K, Xie B, Jacelon CS. Unsustainable home telehealth: a Texas qualitative study. Gerontologist 2016 Oct 29;56(5):830-840. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. van Houwelingen CT, Barakat A, Best R, Boot WR, Charness N, Kort HS. Dutch nurses' willingness to use home telehealth: implications for practice and education. J Gerontol Nurs 2015 Apr;41(4):47-56. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Alaiad A, Zhou L. The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: an empirical investigation. Int J Med Inform 2014 Nov;83(11):825-840. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Sockolow PS, Bowles KH, Adelsberger MC, Chittams JL, Liao C. Challenges and facilitators to adoption of a point-of-care electronic health record in home care. Home Health Care Serv Q 2014 Mar 04;33(1):14-35 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Nielsen JA, Mathiassen L. Interpretive flexibility in mobile health: lessons from a government-sponsored home care program. J Med Internet Res 2013 Oct 30;15(10):e236 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Peeters J, de Veer AJE, van der Hoek L, Francke AL. Factors influencing the adoption of home telecare by elderly or chronically ill people: a national survey. J Clin Nurs 2012 Nov;21(21-22):3183-3193. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Postema T, Peeters J, Friele R. Key factors influencing the implementation success of a home telecare application. Int J Med Inform 2012 Jun;81(6):415-423 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Stokke R. "Maybe we should talk about it anyway": a qualitative study of understanding expectations and use of an established technology innovation in caring practices. BMC Health Serv Res 2017 Sep 15;17(1):657 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Øyen KR, Sunde OS, Solheim M, Moricz S, Ytrehus S. Understanding attitudes toward information and communication technology in home-care: Information and communication technology as a market good within Norwegian welfare services. Inform Health Soc Care 2018 Sep 16;43(3):300-309. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Ibrahim S, Donelle L, Regan S, Sidani S. Exploration of nurses’ experience with using electronic documentation systems in home care. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI) 2019;23(2):1 [FREE Full text]
    47. Radhakrishnan K, Jacelon C, Roche J. Perceptions on the use of telehealth by homecare nurses and patients with heart failure. Home Health Care Management & Practice 2012 Jan 13;24(4):175-181. [CrossRef]
    48. Peek STM, Wouters EJ, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJ. What it takes to successfully implement technology for aging in place: focus groups with stakeholders. J Med Internet Res 2016 May 03;18(5):e98 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Brody AA, Groce-Wofford TM. Feasibility of implementing a web-based education program in geriatric pain and depression for home health care nurses. Home Health Care Management & Practice 2013 Oct 22;25(6):274-278. [CrossRef]
    50. van Doorn-van Atten MN, Haveman-Nies A, Heery D, de Vries JHM, de Groot LCPGM. Feasibility and effectiveness of nutritional telemonitoring for home care clients: a pilot study. Gerontologist 2019 Jan 09;59(1):158-166. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Karlsen C, Moe CE, Haraldstad K, Thygesen E. Caring by telecare? A hermeneutic study of experiences among older adults and their family caregivers. J Clin Nurs 2019 Apr 15;28(7-8):1300-1313. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Nakrem S, Solbjør M, Pettersen IN, Kleiven HH. Care relationships at stake? Home healthcare professionals' experiences with digital medicine dispensers - a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2018 Jan 15;18(1):26 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Birkhoff SD, McCulloh Nair J, Bald K, Frankum T, Sanchez SR, Salvatore AL. Facilitators and challenges in the adoption of a virtual nurse visit in the home health setting. Home Health Care Serv Q 2021 Mar 29;40(2):105-120 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. der Cingel MV, Bulle-Smid L, Holterman S, Prins H, Keuning W, Hettinga M. From clinical reasoning to ehealth interventions; a study on how nurses asses care and ehealth in home care. Nurse Educ Pract 2021 Jan;50:102925. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Kivekäs E, Mikkonen S, Koponen S, Saranto K. Technology supporting nursing at homecare - seems to be lacking. Stud Health Technol Inform 2020 Nov 23;275:97-101. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Glomsås HS, Knutsen IR, Fossum M, Halvorsen K. User involvement in the implementation of welfare technology in home care services: The experience of health professionals-A qualitative study. J Clin Nurs 2020 Nov 13;29(21-22):4007-4019. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Woo K, Dowding D. Decision-making factors associated with telehealth adoption by patients with heart failure at home: a qualitative study. Comput Inform Nurs 2020 Apr;38(4):204-214 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, Dziedzic K, Treweek S, Eldridge S, et al. Achieving change in primary care--causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews. Implement Sci 2016 Mar 22;11(1):40 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci 2016 Oct 26;11(1):146 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Schreiweis B, Pobiruchin M, Strotbaum V, Suleder J, Wiesner M, Bergh B. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of eHealth services: systematic literature analysis. J Med Internet Res 2019 Nov 22;21(11):e14197 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: A conceptual framework. Health Expect 2018 Apr 19;21(2):429-440 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Wildevuur SE, Simonse LW. Information and communication technology-enabled person-centered care for the "big five" chronic conditions: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2015 Mar 27;17(3):e77 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Granström E, Wannheden C, Brommels M, Hvitfeldt H, Nyström ME. Digital tools as promoters for person-centered care practices in chronic care? Healthcare professionals' experiences from rheumatology care. BMC Health Serv Res 2020 Dec 01;20(1):1108 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Tebeje TH, Klein J. Applications of e-Health to support person-centered health care at the time of COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health 2021 Feb 01;27(2):150-158. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Korpershoek YJG, Vervoort SCJM, Trappenburg JCA, Schuurmans MJ. Perceptions of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their health care providers towards using mHealth for self-management of exacerbations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2018 Oct 04;18(1):757 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: Normalization Process Theory. Implement Sci 2009 May 21;4(1):29 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Atkins L, Sallis A, Chadborn T, Shaw K, Schneider A, Hopkins S, et al. Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators and strategic behavioural analysis of interventions. Implement Sci 2020 Jul 06;15(1):44 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Timlin D, McCormack JM, Simpson EE. Using the COM-B model to identify barriers and facilitators towards adoption of a diet associated with cognitive function (MIND diet). Public Health Nutr 2020 Aug 17;24(7):1657-1670. [CrossRef]

    ‎
    CHERRIES: Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys
    COM-B: capability, opportunity, motivation, behavior
    ICT: information and communication technologies
    MMAT: mixed methods appraisal tool
    PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews
    WMO: Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act

    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 08.08.22; peer-reviewed by S Nakem, H Mehdizadeh, R Goossens; comments to author 23.10.22; revised version received 30.11.22; accepted 19.12.22; published 09.03.23

    Copyright

    ©Elke Mathijssen, Wendela de Lange, Nienke Bleijenberg, Thijs van Houwelingen, Tiny Jaarsma, Jaap Trappenburg, Heleen Westland. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 09.03.2023.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.