Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Marie-Pierre Gagnon is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Marie-Pierre Gagnon.


Journal of Medical Systems | 2012

Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals

Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Marie Desmartis; Michel Labrecque; Josip Car; Claudia Pagliari; Pierre Pluye; Pierre Frémont; Johanne Gagnon; Nadine Tremblay

This systematic review of mixed methods studies focuses on factors that can facilitate or limit the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in clinical settings. Systematic searches of relevant bibliographic databases identified studies about interventions promoting ICT adoption by healthcare professionals. Content analysis was performed by two reviewers using a specific grid. One hundred and one (101) studies were included in the review. Perception of the benefits of the innovation (system usefulness) was the most common facilitating factor, followed by ease of use. Issues regarding design, technical concerns, familiarity with ICT, and time were the most frequent limiting factors identified. Our results suggest strategies that could effectively promote the successful adoption of ICT in healthcare professional practices.


Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice | 2011

Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study

Dawn Stacey; Susie Gagnon; Sandy Dunn; Pierre Pluye; Dominick L. Frosch; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Glyn Elwyn; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Ian D. Graham

Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. Methods In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the models implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. Results Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. Conclusions Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice.


BMJ | 2016

An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research

Trisha Greenhalgh; Ellen Annandale; Richard Ashcroft; James Barlow; Nick Black; Alan Bleakley; Ruth Boaden; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Nicky Britten; Franco A. Carnevale; Katherine Checkland; Julianne Cheek; Alexander M. Clark; Simon Cohn; Jack Coulehan; Benjamin F. Crabtree; Steven Cummins; Frank Davidoff; Huw Davies; Robert Dingwall; Mary Dixon-Woods; Glyn Elwyn; Eivind Engebretsen; Ewan Ferlie; Naomi Fulop; John Gabbay; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Dariusz Galasiński; Ruth Garside; Lucy Gilson

Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission


BMC Health Services Research | 2008

Advancing theories, models and measurement for an interprofessional approach to shared decision making in primary care: a study protocol.

Dawn Stacey; Ian D. Graham; Glyn Elwyn; Pierre Pluye; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Dominick L. Frosch; Margaret B. Harrison; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Sophie Pouliot; Sophie Desroches

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is defined as a process by which a healthcare choice is made by practitioners together with the patient. Although many diagnostic and therapeutic processes in primary care integrate more than one type of health professional, most SDM conceptual models and theories appear to be limited to the patient-physician dyad. The objectives of this study are to develop a conceptual model and propose a set of measurement tools for enhancing an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare.Methods/DesignAn inventory of SDM conceptual models, theories and measurement tools will be created. Models will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths, limitations, acknowledgement of interprofessional roles in the process of SDM and relevance to primary care. Based on the theory analysis, a conceptual model and a set of measurements tools that could be used to enhance an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare will be proposed and pilot-tested with key stakeholders and primary healthcare teams.DiscussionThis study protocol is informative for researchers and clinicians interested in designing and/or conducting future studies and educating health professionals to improve how primary healthcare teams foster active participation of patients in making health decisions using a more coordinated approach.


Telemedicine Journal and E-health | 2008

A Systematic Review of the Key Indicators for Assessing Telehomecare Cost-Effectiveness

Stephanie Vergara Rojas; Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Telehomecare is considered one of the most successful applications of telehealth. However, despite increasing evidence of telehomecare benefits, the diffusion of these services is still limited. Decision-makers need strong evidence in order to expand the development of telehomecare to various populations, regions, and health conditions. The objective of this review is to provide a basis for decision-making by identifying common indicators from the literature on telehomecare. A comprehensive review of the literature on the cost-effectiveness of telehomecare was conducted in specialized bibliographic databases. A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. First, selected studies were analyzed to identify and classify the indicators that better addressed the cost-effectiveness impacts of telehomecare projects. Then, a synthesis of the evidence was done by exploring the relative cost-effectiveness of telehomecare applications. The analyses show that there is fair evidence of cost-effectiveness for many telehomecare applications. However, the heterogeneity among cost-effectiveness indicators in the applications reviewed and the methodological limitations of the studies impede the possibility of generalizing the findings. This suggests the need for a set of common indicators that could be applied for assessing the costeffectiveness of telehomecare projects. This review provides knowledge on the indicators available for assessing cost-effectiveness in telehomecare projects. It appears that the specific context in which the projects take place, meaning different patients, environments, technologies, and healthcare systems, should be taken into account when selecting indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness.


Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association | 2016

m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Patrice Ngangue; Julie Payne-Gagnon; Marie Desmartis

OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize current knowledge of the factors influencing healthcare professional adoption of mobile health (m-health) applications. METHODS Covering a period from 2000 to 2014, we conducted a systematic literature search on four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo). We also consulted references from included studies. We included studies if they reported the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding barriers and facilitators to m-health utilization, if they were published in English, Spanish, or French and if they presented an empirical study design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Two authors independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators. RESULTS The search strategy led to a total of 4223 potentially relevant papers, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria. Main perceived adoption factors to m-health at the individual, organizational, and contextual levels were the following: perceived usefulness and ease of use, design and technical concerns, cost, time, privacy and security issues, familiarity with the technology, risk-benefit assessment, and interaction with others (colleagues, patients, and management). CONCLUSION This systematic review provides a set of key elements making it possible to understand the challenges and opportunities for m-health utilization by healthcare providers.


Implementation Science | 2008

Translating shared decision-making into health care clinical practices: Proof of concepts

Glyn Elwyn; Martin Fishbein; Pierre Frémont; Dominick L. Frosch; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; David A. Kenny; Michel Labrecque; Dawn Stacey; Sylvie St-Jacques; Trudy van der Weijden

BackgroundThere is considerable interest today in shared decision-making (SDM), defined as a decision-making process jointly shared by patients and their health care provider. However, the data show that SDM has not been broadly adopted yet. Consequently, the main goal of this proposal is to bring together the resources and the expertise needed to develop an interdisciplinary and international research team on the implementation of SDM in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective.MethodsParticipants include researchers from Canada, US, UK, and Netherlands, representing medicine, nursing, psychology, community health and epidemiology. In order to develop a collaborative research network that takes advantage of the expertise of the team members, the following research activities are planned: 1) establish networking and on-going communication through internet-based forum, conference calls, and a bi-weekly e-bulletin; 2) hold a two-day workshop with two key experts (one in theoretical underpinnings of behavioral change, and a second in dyadic data analysis), and invite all investigators to present their views on the challenges related to the implementation of SDM in clinical practices; 3) conduct a secondary analyses of existing dyadic datasets to ensure that discussion among team members is grounded in empirical data; 4) build capacity with involvement of graduate students in the workshop and online forum; and 5) elaborate a position paper and an international multi-site study protocol.DiscussionThis study protocol aims to inform researchers, educators, and clinicians interested in improving their understanding of effective strategies to implement shared decision-making in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective.


Journal of Medical Internet Research | 2013

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

Patrick Archambault; Tom H van de Belt; F.J. Grajales Iii; Marjan J. Faber; Craig E. Kuziemsky; Susie Gagnon; Andrea Bilodeau; Simon Rioux; W.L.D.M. Nelen; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Alexis F. Turgeon; Karine Aubin; Irving Gold; Julien Poitras; Gunther Eysenbach; J.A.M. Kremer

Background Collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use. Objective Through the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care. Methods Multiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework. Results Of the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users’ knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes. Conclusions Although we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.


PharmacoEconomics | 2014

Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment: Developments to Date

Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Health technology assessment (HTA) uses a multidisciplinary approach to answer relevant questions regarding the safety, efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health technologies. There is growing interest in implementing HTA methods at the hospital level because it could facilitate decision-making regarding acquisition, implementation or discontinuation of technologies or interventions within the hospital. First, this article provides an overview of current international experiences and knowledge of hospital-based HTA. Then, it presents the different types of hospital-based HTA, providing examples of each of these models, as well as their strengths and limitations. Finally, it proposes a set of emerging issues that could help inform decision-makers who consider implementing hospital-based HTA, or other stakeholders interested in the field.


BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | 2012

Users' perspectives of key factors to implementing electronic health records in Canada: a Delphi study.

Carrie Anna McGinn; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Nicola Shaw; Claude Sicotte; Luc Mathieu; Yvan Leduc; Sonya Grenier; Julie Duplantie; Anis Ben Abdeljelil

BackgroundInteroperable electronic health record (EHR) solutions are currently being implemented in Canada, as in many other countries. Understanding EHR users’ perspectives is key to the success of EHR implementation projects. This Delphi study aimed to assess in the Canadian context the applicability, the importance, and the priority of pre-identified factors from a previous mixed-methods systematic review of international literature.MethodsA three-round Delphi study was held with representatives of 4 Canadian EHR user groups defined as partners of the implementation process who use or are expected to use EHR in their everyday activity. These groups are: non-physician healthcare professionals, health information professionals, managers, and physicians. Four bilingual online questionnaire versions were developed from factors identified by the systematic review. Participants were asked to rate the applicability and the importance of each factor. The main outcome measures were consensus and priority. Consensus was defined a priori as strong (≥ 75%) or moderate (≥ 60-74%) according to user groups’ level of agreement on applicability and importance, partial (≥ 60%) when participants agreed only on applicability or importance, or as no consensus (< 60%). Priority for decision-making was defined as factors with strong consensus with scores of 4 or 5 on a five-point Likert scale for applicability and importance.ResultsThree Delphi rounds were completed by 64 participants. Levels of consensus of 100%, 64%, 64%, and 44% were attained on factors submitted to non-physician healthcare professionals, health information professionals, managers, and physicians, respectively. While agreement between and within user groups varied, key factors were prioritized if they were classified as strong (≥ 75% from questionnaire answers of user groups), for decision-making concerning EHR implementation. The10 factors that were prioritized are perceived usefulness, productivity, motivation, participation of end-users in the implementation strategy, patient and health professional interaction, lack of time and workload, resources availability, management, outcome expectancy, and interoperability.ConclusionsAmongst all factors influencing EHR implementation identified in a previous systematic review, ten were prioritized through this Delphi study. The varying levels of agreement between and within user groups could mean that users’ perspectives of each factor are complex and that each user group has unique professional priorities and roles in the EHR implementation process. As more EHR implementations in Canada are completed it will be possible to corroborate this preliminary result with a larger population of EHR users.

Collaboration


Dive into the Marie-Pierre Gagnon's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

José Côté

Université de Montréal

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lise Lamothe

Université de Montréal

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge