Healthcare professional and commissioners’ perspectives on the factors facilitating and hindering the implementation of digital tools for self-management of long-term conditions within UK healthcare pathways

by James P. Gavin, Paul Clarkson, Paul E. Muckelt, Rachael Eckford, Euan Sadler, Suzanne McDonough, Mary Barker

Physical activity is important in the self-management of long-term conditions (LTCs). However, implementing physical activity into clinical practice is challenging, due to complex barriers including access to programmes, time pressures, and transport costs, for people with comorbidities, managing multiple responsibilities. Various digital tools exist to overcome these barriers and support wide-scale implementation to help people stay physically active. We explored the experiences, needs and preferences of healthcare professionals and commissioners, regarding the use of digital tools to support people with LTCs to self-manage using physical activity. This included barriers and facilitators to implementing digital tools to support people with LTCs in NHS settings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted (April 2021 to January 2022) in Wessex, southern England, UK. Purposive sampling was used to recruit general practitioners and healthcare professionals, and convenience sampling to recruit commissioners (n = 15). Transcripts were coded to develop conceptual themes allowing comparisons between and among perspectives, with the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT)’s four constructs used to aid interpretation. Results showed that most digital tools supporting physical activity for LTCs, are not well implemented clinically. Current digital tools were seen to lack condition-specificity, usability/acceptability evidence-base, and voluntary sector involvement (i.e., NPT: coherence or ‘making sense’). Healthcare professionals and commissioners were unlikely to engage with use of digital tools unless they were integrated into health service IT systems and professional networks (i.e., NPT: cognitive participation), or adaptable to the digital literacy levels of service users and staff (i.e., NPT: collective action–needs for implementation). In practice, this meant being technically, easy to use and culturally accessible (i.e., NPT: collective action–promoting healthcare work). COVID-19 changed professional attitudes towards digital tools, in that they saw them being viable, feasible and critical options in a way they had not done before the pandemic. Implementation was also influenced by endorsement and trustworthiness enhancing the perception of them as secure and evidence-based (i.e., NPT: reflective monitoring). Our findings highlight that consideration must be given to ensuring that digital tools are accessible to both healthcare professionals and patients, have usability/acceptability, and are adaptable to specific LTCs. To promote clinical engagement, digital tools must be evidence-based, endorsed by professional networks, and integrated into existing health systems. Digital literacy of patients and professionals is also crucial for cross-service implementation.