Comparing Intention Versus Implementation of an Automated Depression Screening and Monitoring Program
Published in: Population Health Management, 2016
Posted on RAND.org on April 12, 2016
This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.
Health care technology promises to improve quality and decrease costs while improving the patient experience. A recent trial tested a novel health technology that sought to reduce barriers to guideline-recommended depression care by coupling automated telephonic patient assessment with provider notification and decision support. This study compares the intended effects and the end users' experience with using this technology. Responses to semi-structured interviews with the leadership and design team (the intention group) were compared with responses from health professionals in clinics using the technology (the implementation group). Qualitative methods were applied to compare perspectives on the role of technology in care delivery and on the technology's impact on barriers to providing guideline-recommended care. Four members of the intention group and 17 members of the implementation group were interviewed. The 2 groups had similar notions of technology's role in care delivery. The technology increased provider awareness, empowered midlevel providers, and facilitated collaboration among care team members. However, the implementation group identified gaps in care processes and in the informatics system that the technology did not address, and for which providers remained responsible. The 2 groups had comparable perspectives on the value and limits of technology in improving adherence to guideline-recommended care. However, the intention group did not discuss many of the shortcomings identified by the implementation group. Also, the interviews suggest that although some barriers persisted and a few new ones arose, the technology succeeded in reducing barriers to guideline-recommended care.
This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.