Background: The implementation of models of integrated care for chronic conditions is not well understood. We conducted a realist evaluation to determine how and why the implementation of the National Diabetes Programme in Ireland worked (or not). Methods: Documentary analysis and qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of national stakeholders (n = 19), were used to develop an initial theory on expected programme delivery. We refined this theory using semi-structured interviews (n = 38) with professionals from different clinical disciplines involved in programme implementation. Results: Locally important contexts facilitating implementation included staff experience of delivering diabetes care, capacity, and familiarity with the intended purpose of new clinical posts. The extent to which integrated care was adopted and implemented depended on judgements made by professionals working in these contexts; specifically, judging the relative advantage of the programme and whether to engage in negotiations to legitimize their new roles in diabetes care. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for adequate preparatory work to raise awareness of and support new roles to implement integrated care, clarification on the core components of new care models, and the development of local service infrastructures to support integrated care.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground Fewer than 1% of UK general practice consultations occur by video. Aim To explain why video consultations are not more widely used in general practice. Design and setting Analysis of a sub-sample of data from three mixed-method case studies of remote consultation services in various UK settings from 2019\u20132021. Method The dataset included interviews and focus groups with 121 participants from primary care (33 patients, 55 GPs, 11 other clinicians, nine managers, four support staff, four national policymakers, five technology industry). Data were transcribed, coded thematically, and then analysed using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS) framework. Results With few exceptions, video consultations were either never adopted or soon abandoned in general practice despite a strong policy push, short-term removal of regulatory and financial barriers, and advances in functionality, dependability, and usability of video technologies (though some products remained \u2018fiddly\u2019 and unreliable). The relative advantage of video was perceived as minimal for most of the caseload of general practice, since many presenting problems could be sorted adequately and safely by telephone and in-person assessment was considered necessary for the remainder. Some patients found video appointments convenient, appropriate, and reassuring but others found a therapeutic presence was only achieved in person. Video sometimes added value for out-of-hours and nursing home consultations and statutory functions (for example, death certification). Conclusion Efforts to introduce video consultations in general practice should focus on situations where this modality has a clear relative advantage (for example, strong patient or clinician preference, remote localities, out-of-hours services, nursing homes).
\n \n\n \n \nThe provision of reassurance is seen as a goal and benefit of the use of assistive technology (AT) in supporting people to manage their health and care needs at a distance. Conceptually, reassurance in health and care settings remains under-theorised with the benefits of experiencing reassurance through technology use assumed rather than understood. UK health and social care service goals of managing safety and risk have largely been equated with providing reassurance to users of AT and their carers. What has not been explored is how reassurance is experienced variably by users of different types of technology-enabled care. We present data from 3 case studies of different technologies in use in health and social care provision, analysed through a postphenomenology and sociomaterial lens. Our findings point to reassurance as an important facet of AT provision but the intended functions and uses of technological devices alone did not account for people's experiences of reassurance. Participant narratives referred variously to the comfort of being monitored, having their illness/wellness verified by the device, feeling reassured by the promise of help if needed, and imbuing the device with symbolic meaning (when the user associated the device with meanings and functions other than its technical capabilities). The different ways in which reassurance was experienced provides a useful way of understanding the potential tensions with AT policy goals as well as the positive meaning attributed to devices in some cases. This study reaffirms the importance of AT implementation being anchored in what matters to the user.
\n \n\n \n \nRequirements for physical distancing as a result of COVID-19 and the need to reduce the risk of infection prompted policy supporting rapid roll out of video consulting across the four nations of the UK\u2014England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Drawing on three studies of the accelerated implementation and uptake of video consulting across the four nations, we present a comparative and interpretive policy analysis of the spread and scale-up of video consulting during the pandemic. Data include interviews with 59 national level stakeholders, 55 health and social care staff and 30 patients, 20 national documents, responses to a UK-wide survey of NHS staff and analysis of routine activity data. Sampling ensured variations in geography, clinical context and adoption progress across the combined dataset. Comparative analysis was guided by theory on policy implementation and crisis management. The pandemic provided a \u201cburning platform\u201d prompting UK-wide policy supporting the use of video consulting in health care as a critical means of managing the risk of infection and a standard mode of provision. This policy push facilitated interest in video consulting across the UK. There was, however, marked variation in how this was put into practice across the four nations. Pre-existing infrastructure, policies and incentives for video consulting in Scotland, combined with a collaborative system-level approach, a program dedicated to developing video-based services and resourcing and supporting staff to deliver them enabled widespread buy-in and rapid spread. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, pre-existing support for digital health (e.g., hardware, incentives) and virtual care, combined with reduced regulation and \u201clight touch\u201d procurement managed to override some (but by no means all) cultural barriers and professional resistance to implementing digital change. In Northern Ireland and Wales, limited infrastructure muted spread. In all three countries, significant effort at system level to develop, review and run video consulting programs enabled a substantial number of providers to change their practice, albeit variably across settings. Across all four nations ongoing uncertainty, potential restructuring and tightening of regulations, along with difficulties inherent in addressing inequalities in digital access, raise questions about the longer-term sustainability of changes to-date.
\n \n\n \n \nObjective: We sought to examine co-design in 3 contrasting case studies of technology-supported change in health care and explain its role in influencing project success. Materials and Methods: Longitudinal case studies of a seizure detection and reporting technology for epilepsy (Southern England, 2018-2019), a telehealth service for heart failure (7 UK sites, 2016-2018), and a remote video consultation service (Scotland-wide, 2019-2020). We carried out interviews with 158 participants and collected more than 200 pages of field notes from observations. Within-and cross-case analysis was informed by sociotechnical theory. Results: In the epilepsy case, co-design prioritized patient-facing features and focused closely around a specific clinic, which led to challenges with sustainability and mainstreaming. In the heart failure case, patient-focused co-design produced an accessible and usable patient portal but resulted in variation in uptake between clinical sites. Successful scale-up of video consultations was explained by a co-design process involving not only the technical interface, but also careful reshaping of work practices. Discussion: A shift is needed from co-designing with technology users to co-designing with patients as service users, and with healthcare staff as professionals. Good co-design needs to involve users, including those who engage with the technology-supported service bothdirectly and indirectly. It requires sensitivity to emergence and unpredictability in complex systems. Healthcare staff need to be supported to accommodate iterative change in the service. Adequate resourcing and infrastructures for systems-focused co-design are essential. Conclusions: If co-design focuses narrowly on the technology, opportunities will be missed to coevolve technologies alongside clinical practices and organizational routines.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: COVID-19 has thrust video consulting into the limelight, as health care practitioners worldwide shift to delivering care remotely. Evidence suggests that video consulting is acceptable, safe, and effective in selected conditions and settings. However, research to date has mostly focused on initial adoption, with limited consideration of how video consulting can be mainstreamed and sustained. Objective: This study sought to do the following: (1) review and synthesize reported opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of video consultations, and (2) identify transferable insights that can inform policy and practice. Methods: We identified papers through systematic searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Included articles reported on synchronous, video-based consultations that had spread to more than one setting beyond an initial pilot or feasibility stage, and were published since 2010. We used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to synthesize findings relating to 7 domains: An understanding of the health condition(s) for which video consultations were being used, the material properties of the technological platform and relevant peripherals, the value proposition for patients and developers, the role of the adopter system, organizational factors, wider macro-level considerations, and emergence over time. Results: We identified 13 papers describing 10 different video consultation services in 6 regions, covering the following: (1) video-to-home services, connecting providers directly to the patient; (2) hub-and-spoke models, connecting a provider at a central hub to a patient at a rural center; and (3) large-scale top-down evaluations scaled up or spread across a national health administration. Services covered rehabilitation, geriatrics, cancer surgery, diabetes, and mental health, as well as general specialist care and primary care. Potential enablers of spread and scale-up included embedded leadership and the presence of a telehealth champion, appropriate reimbursement mechanisms, user-friendly technology, pre-existing staff relationships, and adaptation (of technology and services) over time. Challenges tended to be related to service development, such as the absence of a long-term strategic plan, resistance to change, cost and reimbursement issues, and the technical experience of staff. There was limited articulation of the challenges to scale-up and spread of video consultations. This was combined with a lack of theorization, with papers tending to view spread and scale-up as the sum of multiple technical implementations, rather than theorizing the distinct processes required to achieve widespread adoption. Conclusions: There remains a significant lack of evidence that can support the spread and scale-up of video consulting. Given the recent pace of change due to COVID-19, a more definitive evidence base is urgently needed to support global efforts and match enthusiasm for extending use.
\n \n\n \n \nAbstract BackgroundCentralised specialist remote support, in which a clinician responds promptly to biomarker changes, could potentially improve outcomes in heart failure. The SUPPORT-HF2 trial compared telehealth technology alone with the same technology combined with centralised remote support. The intervention was implemented differently in different sites; no significant impact was found overall. We sought to explain these findings in a qualitative evaluation. Methods51 people (25 patients, 3 carers, 18 clinicians and 4 additional research staff) were interviewed and observed in 7 SUPPORT-HF sites across UK between 2016 and 2018. We also collected 110 pages of documents. Analysis was informed by sociotechnical theory. ResultsPatients\u2019 experiences of the technology were largely positive; staff engaged with the intervention to a variable degree. Existing services, staffing levels, technical capacity and previous experience with telehealth all influenced how the complex intervention of \u2018telehealth technology plus centralised specialist remote support\u2019 was interpreted and the extent to which it was adopted and used to its full potential. In some settings, the intervention was quickly mobilised to fill significant gaps in service provision. In others, it was seen as usefully extending the existing care model for selected patients. However, in some settings, the new care model was actively resisted and the technology little used. In one setting, centralised provision of specialist advice aligned awkwardly with an existing community-based heart failure support service. ConclusionsThe introduction of a telehealth programme rests not only on the technological intervention but also on the individuals involved and numerous subtle aspects of local service design. An iterative approach that attends to patients\u2019 illness experiences, clinicians\u2019 professional values, work practices and care pathways could lead to more effective telehealth support for patients with heart failure.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: The SUPPORT-HF2 randomised controlled trial compared telehealth technology alone with the same technology combined with centralised remote support, in which a clinician responds promptly to biomarker changes. The intervention was implemented differently in different sites; no overall impact was found on the primary endpoint (proportion of patients on optimum treatment). We sought to explain the trial\u2019s findings in a qualitative evaluation. Methods: Fifty-one people (25 patients, 3 carers, 18 clinicians, 4 additional researchers) were interviewed and observed in 7 UK trial sites in 2016\u20132018. We collected 110 pages of documents. The analysis was informed by the NASSS framework, a multi-level theoretical lens which considers non-adoption and abandonment of technologies by individuals and challenges to scale-up, spread and sustainability. In particular, we used NASSS to tease out why a \u2018standardised\u2019 socio-technical intervention played out differently in different sites. Results: Patients\u2019 experiences of the technology were largely positive, though influenced by the nature and severity of their illness. In each trial site, existing services, staffing levels, technical capacity and previous telehealth experiences influenced how the complex intervention of \u2018telehealth technology plus centralised specialist remote support\u2019 was interpreted and the extent to which it was adopted and used to its full potential. In some sites, the intervention was quickly mobilised to fill significant gaps in service provision. In others, it was seen as usefully extending the existing care model for selected patients. Elsewhere, the new model was actively resisted and the technology little used. In one site, centralised provision of specialist advice aligned awkwardly with an existing community-based heart failure support service. Conclusions: Complex socio-technical interventions, even when implemented in a so-called standardised way with uniform inclusion and exclusion criteria, are inevitably implemented differently in different local settings because of how individual staff members interpret the technology and the trial protocol and because of the practical realities and path dependencies of local organisations. Site-specific iteration and embedding of a new technology-supported complex intervention may be required (in addition to co-design of the user interface) before such interventions are ready for testing in clinical trials. Trial registration: BMC ISRCTN Registry 86212709. Retrospectively registered on 5 September 2014
\n \n\n \n \n\nBACKGROUND\nCOVID-19 has thrust video consulting into the limelight, as health care practitioners worldwide shift to delivering care remotely. Evidence suggests that video consulting is acceptable, safe, and effective in selected conditions and settings. However, research to date has mostly focused on initial adoption, with limited consideration of how video consulting can be mainstreamed and sustained.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThis study sought to do the following: (1) review and synthesize reported opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of video consultations, and (2) identify transferable insights that can inform policy and practice.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe identified papers through systematic searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Included articles reported on synchronous, video-based consultations that had spread to more than one setting beyond an initial pilot or feasibility stage, and were published since 2010. We used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to synthesize findings relating to 7 domains: an understanding of the health condition(s) for which video consultations were being used, the material properties of the technological platform and relevant peripherals, the value proposition for patients and developers, the role of the adopter system, organizational factors, wider macro-level considerations, and emergence over time.\n\n\nRESULTS\nWe identified 13 papers describing 10 different video consultation services in 6 regions, covering the following: (1) video-to-home services, connecting providers directly to the patient; (2) hub-and-spoke models, connecting a provider at a central hub to a patient at a rural center; and (3) large-scale top-down evaluations scaled up or spread across a national health administration. Services covered rehabilitation, geriatrics, cancer surgery, diabetes, and mental health, as well as general specialist care and primary care. Potential enablers of spread and scale-up included embedded leadership and the presence of a telehealth champion, appropriate reimbursement mechanisms, user-friendly technology, pre-existing staff relationships, and adaptation (of technology and services) over time. Challenges tended to be related to service development, such as the absence of a long-term strategic plan, resistance to change, cost and reimbursement issues, and the technical experience of staff. There was limited articulation of the challenges to scale-up and spread of video consultations. This was combined with a lack of theorization, with papers tending to view spread and scale-up as the sum of multiple technical implementations, rather than theorizing the distinct processes required to achieve widespread adoption.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThere remains a significant lack of evidence that can support the spread and scale-up of video consulting. Given the recent pace of change due to COVID-19, a more definitive evidence base is urgently needed to support global efforts and match enthusiasm for extending use.\n
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Internet of Things (IoT) innovations such as wearables and sensors promise improved health outcomes and service efficiencies. Yet, most applications remain experimental with little routine use in health and care settings. We sought to examine the multiple interacting influences on IoT implementation, spread and scale-up, including the role of regional innovation \u2018ecosystems\u2019 and the impact of the COVID-19 context. Methods: Qualitative study involving 20 participants with clinical, entrepreneurial and broader innovation experience in 18 in-depth interviews, focusing primarily on heart monitoring and assistive technology applications. Data analysis was informed by the NASSS (non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability) framework. Results: Interviewees discussed multiple tensions and trade-offs, including lack of organisational capacity for routine IoT use, limited ability to receive and interpret data, complex procurement and governance processes, and risk of health disparities and inequalities without system support and funding. Although the pandemic highlighted opportunities for IoT use, it was unclear whether these would be sustained, with framings of innovation as \u2018disruption\u2019 coming at odds with immediate needs in healthcare settings. Even in an \u2018ecosystem\u2019 with strong presence of academic and research institutions, support was viewed as limited, with impressions of siloed working, conflicting agendas, fragmentation and lack of collaboration opportunities. Conclusions: IoT development, implementation and roll-out require support from multiple ecosystem actors to be able to articulate a value proposition beyond experimental or small-scale applications. In contexts where clinical, academic and commercial worlds collide, sustained effort is needed to align needs, priorities and motives, and to strengthen potential for good value IoT innovation.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: The availability, affordability and utilisation of commercially available self-monitoring devices is increasing, but their impact on routine clinical decision-making remains little explored. We sought to examine how patient-generated cardiovascular data influenced clinical evaluation in UK cardiology outpatient clinics and to understand clinical attitudes and experiences with using data from commercially available self-monitoring devices. Methods: Mixed methods study combining: a) quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 1373 community cardiology clinic letters, recording consultations between January\u2013September 2020 including periods with different Covid-19 related restrictions, and b) semi-structured qualitative interviews and group discussions with 20 cardiology-affiliated clinicians at the same NHS Trust. Results: Patient-generated cardiovascular data were described in 185/1373 (13.5%) clinic letters overall, with the proportion doubling following onset of the first Covid-19 lockdown in England, from 8.3% to 16.6% (p < 0.001). In 127/185 (69%) cases self-monitored data were found to: provide or facilitate cardiac diagnoses (34/127); assist management of previously diagnosed cardiac conditions (55/127); be deployed for cardiovascular prevention (16/127); or be recommended for heart rhythm evaluation (10/127). In 58/185 (31%) cases clinicians did not put the self-monitored data to any evident use and in 12/185 (6.5%) cases patient-generated data prompted an unnecessary referral. In interviews and discussions, clinicians expressed mixed views on patient-generated data but foresaw a need to embrace and plan for this information flow, and proactively address challenges with integration into traditional care pathways. Conclusions: This study suggests patient-generated data are being used for clinical decision-making in ad hoc and opportunistic ways. Given shifts towards remote monitoring in clinical care, accelerated by the pandemic, there is a need to consider how best to incorporate patient-generated data in clinical processes, introduce relevant training, pathways and governance frameworks, and manage associated risks.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are expected to \u201crevolutionise\u201d healthcare. However, despite their promises, their integration within healthcare organisations and systems remains limited. The objective of this study is to explore and understand the systemic challenges and implications of their integration in a leading Canadian academic hospital. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders concerned by the integration of a large set of AI technologies within the organisation (e.g., managers, clinicians, researchers, patients, technology providers). Data were collected and analysed using the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework. Results: Among enabling factors and conditions, our findings highlight: a supportive organisational culture and leadership leading to a coherent organisational innovation narrative; mutual trust and transparent communication between senior management and frontline teams; the presence of champions, translators, and boundary spanners for AI able to build bridges and trust; and the capacity to attract technical and clinical talents and expertise. Constraints and barriers include: contrasting definitions of the value of AI technologies and ways to measure such value; lack of real-life and context-based evidence; varying patients\u2019 digital and health literacy capacities; misalignments between organisational dynamics, clinical and administrative processes, infrastructures, and AI technologies; lack of funding mechanisms covering the implementation, adaptation, and expertise required; challenges arising from practice change, new expertise development, and professional identities; lack of official professional, reimbursement, and insurance guidelines; lack of pre- and post-market approval legal and governance frameworks; diversity of the business and financing models for AI technologies; and misalignments between investors\u2019 priorities and the needs and expectations of healthcare organisations and systems. Conclusion: Thanks to the multidimensional NASSS framework, this study provides original insights and a detailed learning base for analysing AI technologies in healthcare from a thorough socio-technical perspective. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the complexity characterising healthcare organisations and systems in current efforts to introduce AI technologies within clinical routines. This study adds to the existing literature and can inform decision-making towards a judicious, responsible, and sustainable integration of these technologies in healthcare organisations and systems.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. Methods: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. Results: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The \u2018Triple C\u2019 (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: The relationship between healthcare interventions and context is widely conceived as involving complex and dynamic interactions over time. However, evaluations of complex health interventions frequently fail to mobilise such complexity, reporting context and interventions as reified and demarcated categories. This raises questions about practices shaping knowledge about context, with implications for who and what we make visible in our research. Viewed through the lens of case study research, we draw on data collected for the Triple C study (focused on Case study, Context and Complex interventions), to critique these practices, and call for system-wide changes in how notions of context are operationalised in evaluations of complex health interventions. Methods: The Triple C study was funded by the Medical Research Council to develop case study guidance and reporting principles taking account of context and complexity. As part of this study, a one-day workshop with 58 participants and nine interviews were conducted with those involved in researching, evaluating, publishing, funding and developing policy and practice from case study research. Discussions focused on how to conceptualise and operationalise context within case study evaluations of complex health interventions. Analysis focused on different constructions and connections of context in relation to complex interventions and the wider social forces structuring participant\u2019s accounts. Results: We found knowledge-making practices about context shaped by epistemic and political forces, manifesting as: tensions between articulating complexity and clarity of description; ontological (in)coherence between conceptualisations of context and methods used; and reified versions of context being privileged when communicating with funders, journals, policymakers and publics. Conclusion: We argue that evaluations of complex health interventions urgently requires wide-scale critical reflection on how context is mobilised - by funders, health services researchers, journal editors and policymakers. Connecting with how scholars approach complexity and context across disciplines provides opportunities for creatively expanding the field in which health evaluations are conducted, enabling a critical standpoint to long-established traditions and opening up possibilities for innovating the design of evaluations of complex health interventions.
\n \n\n \n \nObjectives When seeking to prevent type 2 diabetes, a balance must be struck between individual approaches (focusing on people's behaviour choices') and population approaches (focusing on the environment in which those choices are made) to address the socioeconomic complexity of diabetes development. We sought to explore how this balance is negotiated in the accounts of policy-makers developing and enacting diabetes prevention policy. Methods Twelve semistructured interviews were undertaken with nine UK policy-makers between 2018-2021. We explored their perspectives on disease prevention strategies and what influenced policy decision-making. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using NVIVO. We used Shiffman's political priority framework to theorise why some diabetes prevention policy approaches gather political support while others do not. Results The distribution of power and funding among relevant actors, and the way they exerted their power determined the dominant approach in diabetes prevention policy. As a result of this distribution, policy-makers framed their accounts of diabetes prevention policies in terms of individual behaviour change, monitoring personal quantitative markers but with limited ability to effect population-level approaches. Such an approach aligns with the current prevailing neoliberal political context, which focuses on individual lifestyle choices to prevent disease rather than on infrastructure measures to improve the environments and contexts within which those choices are made. Conclusion Within new local and national policy structures, there is an opportunity for collaborative working among the National Health Service, local governments and public health teams to balance the focus on disease prevention, addressing upstream drivers of ill health as well as targeting individuals with the highest risk of diabetes.
\n \n\n \n \nVirtual care spread rapidly at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Restricting in-person contact contributed to reducing the spread of infection and saved lives. However, the benefits of virtual care were not evenly distributed within and across social groups, and existing inequalities became exacerbated for those unable to fully access to, or benefit from virtual services. This \u201cperspective\u201d paper discusses the extent to which challenges in virtual care access and use in the context of COVID-19 follow the Inverse Care Law. The latter stipulates that the availability and quality of health care is inversely proportionate to the level of population health needs. We highlight the inequalities affecting some disadvantaged populations\u2019 access to, and use of public and private virtual care, and contrast this with a utopian vision of technology as the \u201csolution to everything\u201d. In public and universal health systems, the Inverse Care Law may manifests itself in access issues, capacity, and/or lack of perceived benefit to use digital technologies, as well as in data poverty. For commercial \u201cDirect-To-Consumer\u201d services, all of the above may be encouraged via a consumerist (i.e., profit-oriented) approach, limited and episodic services, or the use of low direct cost platforms. With virtual care rapidly growing, we set out ways forward for policy, practice, and research to ensure virtual care benefits for everyone, which include: (1) pay more attention to \u201ccapabilities\u201d supporting access and use of virtual care; (2) consider digital technologies as a basic human right that should be automatically taken into account, not only in health policies, but also in social policies; (3) take more seriously the impact of the digital economy on equity, notably through a greater state involvement in co-constructing \u201cpublic health value\u201d through innovation; and (4) reconsider the dominant digital innovation research paradigm to better recognize the contexts, factors, and conditions that influence access to and use of virtual care by different groups.
\n \n\n \n \n