IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i5p4015-d1078633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Public Healthcare Priorities in Virtual Care for Older Adults: A Participatory Research Study

Author

Listed:
  • Dai Pu

    (School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia
    Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia)

  • Victoria Palmer

    (Department of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Louise Greenstock

    (Western Alliance Academic Health Science Centre, Warrnambool, VIC 3280, Australia)

  • Cathie Pigott

    (Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia)

  • Anna Peeters

    (Western Alliance Academic Health Science Centre, Warrnambool, VIC 3280, Australia
    Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC 3125, Australia)

  • Lena Sanci

    (Department of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Michele Callisaya

    (Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia
    Menzies Institute for Medical Research, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia)

  • Colette Browning

    (Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Federation University, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia
    Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia)

  • Wendy Chapman

    (Centre for Digital Transformation of Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Terry Haines

    (School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia
    Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia)

Abstract

There has been increasing adoption and implementation of virtual healthcare in recent years, especially with COVID-19 impacting the world. As a result, virtual care initiatives may not undergo stringent quality control processes to ensure that they are appropriate to their context and meet sector needs. The two objectives of this study were to identify virtual care initiatives for older adults currently in use in Victoria and virtual care challenges that could be prioritised for further investigation and scale-up and to understand why certain virtual care initiatives and challenges are prioritised over others for investigation and scale-up. Methods: This project used an Emerging Design approach. A survey of public health services in the state of Victoria in Australia was first carried out, followed by the co-production of research and healthcare priorities with key stakeholders in the areas of primary care, hospital care, consumer representation, research, and government. The survey was used to gather existing virtual care initiatives for older adults and any associated challenges. Co-production processes consisted of individual ratings of initiatives and group-based discussions to identify priority virtual care initiatives and challenges to be addressed for future scale-up. Stakeholders nominated their top three virtual initiatives following discussions. Results: Telehealth was nominated as the highest priority initiative type for scaling up, with virtual emergency department models of care nominated as the highest priority within this category. Remote monitoring was voted as a top priority for further investigations. The top virtual care challenge was data sharing across services and settings, and the user-friendliness of virtual care platforms was nominated as the top priority for further investigation. Conclusions: Stakeholders prioritised public health virtual care initiatives that are easy to adopt and address needs that are perceived to be more immediate (acute more so than chronic care). Virtual care initiatives that incorporate more technology and integrated elements are valued, but more information is needed to inform their potential scale-up.

Suggested Citation

  • Dai Pu & Victoria Palmer & Louise Greenstock & Cathie Pigott & Anna Peeters & Lena Sanci & Michele Callisaya & Colette Browning & Wendy Chapman & Terry Haines, 2023. "Identifying Public Healthcare Priorities in Virtual Care for Older Adults: A Participatory Research Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:4015-:d:1078633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/4015/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/4015/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Lai & Nicole O. Widmar, 2021. "Revisiting the Digital Divide in the COVID‐19 Era," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 458-464, March.
    2. Roz Walker & Kim Usher & Debra Jackson & Corinne Reid & Katrina Hopkins & Carrington Shepherd & Reakeeta Smallwood & Rhonda Marriott, 2021. "Connection to... Addressing Digital Inequities in Supporting the Well-Being of Young Indigenous Australians in the Wake of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-14, February.
    3. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Wynen, Jan & Boon, Jan & Kleizen, Bjorn & Verhoest, Koen, 2020. "How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior : Evidence from the Australian Public Service," Other publications TiSEM 4f721d76-0c44-4d72-a494-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    4. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.
    5. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "Inequalities in the times of a pandemic," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 37(109), pages 5-41.
    6. Filippetti, Andrea & Vezzani, Antonio, 2022. "The political economy of public research, or why some governments commit to research more than others," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    7. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Vassallo, Jarrod P. & Banerjee, Sourindra & Zaman, Hasanuzzaman & Prabhu, Jaideep C., 2023. "Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. Tânia Martins & Alexandra Braga & Marisa R. Ferreira & Vítor Braga, 2022. "Diving into Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Pwint Kay Khine & Jianing Mi & Raza Shahid, 2021. "A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    11. Manuel Alméstar & Sara Romero-Muñoz & Nieves Mestre & Uriel Fogué & Eva Gil & Amanda Masha, 2023. "(Un)Likely Connections between (Un)Likely Actors in the Art/NBS Co-Creation Process: Application of KREBS Cycle of Creativity to the Cyborg Garden Project," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-25, May.
    12. Roberto Vivona & Mehmet Akif Demircioglu & David B. Audretsch, 2023. "The costs of collaborative innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 873-899, June.
    13. Maria Symeonaki & George Filandrianos & Giorgos Stamou, 2022. "Visualising key information and communication technologies (ICT) indicators for children and young individuals in Europe," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Alessandro Piperno & Christian Iaione & Luna Kappler, 2023. "Institutional Collective Actions for Culture and Heritage-Led Urban Regeneration: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, May.
    15. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public service innovation networks (PSINs): an instrument for collaborative innovation and value co-creation in public service(s)," Working Papers halshs-01934284, HAL.
    16. Tan, Wee-Liang & Zuckermann, Ghil'ad, 2021. "External impetus, co-production and grassroots innovations: The case of an innovation involving a language," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    17. Juliet Carpenter & Christina Horvath & Ben Spencer, 2021. "Co-Creation as an agonistic practice in the favela of Santa Marta, Rio de Janeiro," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(9), pages 1906-1923, July.
    18. Ratten, Vanessa & da Silva Braga, Vitor Lélio & da Encarnação Marques, Carla Susana, 2021. "Sport entrepreneurship and value co-creation in times of crisis: The covid-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 265-274.
    19. Marta Irene DeLosRíos-White & Peter Roebeling & Sandra Valente & Ines Vaittinen, 2020. "Mapping the Life Cycle Co-Creation Process of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Climate Change Adaptation," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-26, April.
    20. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk & Mateusz Grzesiak, 2020. "Cooperation between Final Purchasers and Offerors in the Online and Offline Environments vs. the Benefits Derived by Active Purchasers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:4015-:d:1078633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.