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.