Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16585029›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2006

What is eHealth (6): perspectives on the evolution of eHealth research.

David K Ahern, Jennifer M Kreslake, Judith M Phalen

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of clinician and staff views on the acceptability of incorporating remote monitoring technology into primary care.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2014
    Pooled it
  3. Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frameworks for assessing digital health technologies: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Group differences in health literacy are ameliorated in ehealth literacy.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David K AhernHealth e-Technologies Initiative, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1249 Boylston Street, Third Floor, Boston, MA 02215, USA. dahern@partners.org
Jennifer M Kreslake
Judith M Phalen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field of eHealth holds promise for supporting and enabling health behavior change and the prevention and management of chronic disease.

objectiveIn order to establish areas of congruence and controversy among contributors to the early development, evaluation, and dissemination of eHealth applications, as well as the desire to inform an evaluation research funding agenda, 38 semistructured, qualitative interviews were conducted among stakeholders in eHealth between May 2002 and September 2003.

methodsParticipants were asked about their perspectives on the credibility, value, and future potential of information technology for health behavior change and chronic disease management. Interviews were coded and analyzed for emergent themes using qualitative methods.

resultsConsistent themes were identified across stakeholder groups, with slight differences in emphasis. These topics included the following: (1) consensus and standardization-most stakeholders expressed a strong desire for a more coordinated, rigorous effort to define and integrate the field; (2) evaluation methods and challenges-demonstrating outcomes is required to establish eHealth quality and efficacy, but stakeholders were not satisfied with the sensitivity, validity, and reliability of existing outcome measures; (3) quality, value, and future potential-the intersection between eHealth's potential cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and improved clinical status among users generated a high degree of interest; and (4) health disparities-many stakeholders contended that traditionally underserved populations will particularly benefit from eHealth applications, although others argued that the underserved are also disadvantaged in terms of access to technology.

conclusionsRecommendations included the need for improvement and formalization of development and evaluation standards across private and public sectors, additional research on the technology needs and preferences of traditionally underserved populations, and long-term epidemiologic studies of the impact of eHealth on outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseDisease ManagementHealth BehaviorHealth Services ResearchHumansInformation DisseminationInternetInterviews as TopicMedical InformaticsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Education as TopicTelemedicineUnited States

Identifiers

PMID16585029
PMCPMC1550694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.