Digital health technology use in Australian general practice (GP) consultations: a cross-sectional analysis of the medicine in Australia: balancing employment and life study.

Michael Tran, Joel Rhee, Katrina Blazek, Chinthaka Balasooriya, Kylie Vuong
{"title":"Digital health technology use in Australian general practice (GP) consultations: a cross-sectional analysis of the medicine in Australia: balancing employment and life study.","authors":"Michael Tran, Joel Rhee, Katrina Blazek, Chinthaka Balasooriya, Kylie Vuong","doi":"10.1017/S1463423625000143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>The use of technology including digital decision support tools has become more ubiquitous in general practice. Australian GPs' use of digital decision support tools, the sentiments, and associations with practitioner and practice characteristics. Positive and negative sentiments were considered facilitators and barriers to the uptake of digital decision support tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study was undertaken with data from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) survey was analysed. 3,126 GPs responded from a total of 27,829 participants representing all types of physicians, surveyed in September 2018. Descriptive statistics was used to examine facilitators and barriers to GP uptake of digital decision support tools, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine its associations with practitioner and practice characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2240 GPs in this study (83.8%) reported using digital decision support tools with largely positive sentiments regarding technology use in consultations. Reservations include privacy concerns, system incompatibility, and lack of support. Those using digital decision support tools were more likely to be female, younger and bulk-billing.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Perceived facilitators of digital decision support tools in Australian general practice include improvements in patient outcomes, satisfaction, care processes, and saving time. Barriers include concerns about data privacy, lack of support, incompatibility, and being time-consuming. There was higher uptake amongst bulk-billing and female practitioners. Further research on the clinical usefulness of digital decision support tools and its impact on decision-making in general practice would be of value.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"26 ","pages":"e19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423625000143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: The use of technology including digital decision support tools has become more ubiquitous in general practice. Australian GPs' use of digital decision support tools, the sentiments, and associations with practitioner and practice characteristics. Positive and negative sentiments were considered facilitators and barriers to the uptake of digital decision support tools.

Methods: Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study was undertaken with data from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) survey was analysed. 3,126 GPs responded from a total of 27,829 participants representing all types of physicians, surveyed in September 2018. Descriptive statistics was used to examine facilitators and barriers to GP uptake of digital decision support tools, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine its associations with practitioner and practice characteristics.

Results: 2240 GPs in this study (83.8%) reported using digital decision support tools with largely positive sentiments regarding technology use in consultations. Reservations include privacy concerns, system incompatibility, and lack of support. Those using digital decision support tools were more likely to be female, younger and bulk-billing.

Discussion: Perceived facilitators of digital decision support tools in Australian general practice include improvements in patient outcomes, satisfaction, care processes, and saving time. Barriers include concerns about data privacy, lack of support, incompatibility, and being time-consuming. There was higher uptake amongst bulk-billing and female practitioners. Further research on the clinical usefulness of digital decision support tools and its impact on decision-making in general practice would be of value.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Considering family trees as a useful tool in family medicine: a systematic review. Digital health technology use in Australian general practice (GP) consultations: a cross-sectional analysis of the medicine in Australia: balancing employment and life study. An innovative nurse practitioner-led service for children from families living in housing instability. Feasibility of utilizing the Modified Centor Criteria in adult virtual care. Person-centred integrated primary care for refugees: a mixed-methods, stepped wedge design study to assess the impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1