Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25869685›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Exploring the challenges of implementing e-health: a protocol for an update of a systematic review of reviews.

Jamie Ross, Fiona Stevenson, Rosa Lau, Elizabeth Murray

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Co-Creation in Health 4.0 as a New Solution for a New Era.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

4 authors.

Jamie Rosse-Health Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Fiona Stevensone-Health Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Rosa Laue-Health Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Elizabeth Murraye-Health Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is great potential for e-health to deliver cost-effective, quality healthcare and spending on e-health systems by governments and healthcare systems is increasing worldwide. However, the literature often describes problematic and unsuccessful attempts to implement these new technologies into routine clinical practice. To understand and address the challenges of implementing e-health, a systematic review was conducted in 2009, which identified several conceptual barriers and facilitators to implementation. As technology is rapidly changing and new e-health solutions are constantly evolving to meet the needs of current practice, an update of this review is deemed necessary to understand current challenges to the implementation of e-health. This research aims to identify, summarise and synthesise currently available evidence, by undertaking a systematic review of reviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing e-health across a range of healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for an update of a systematic review of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO and The Cochrane Library for studies published between 2009 and 2014. We will check reference lists of included studies for further studies. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts identified from the search; any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Full-text papers will be obtained and relevant reviews will be selected against inclusion criteria. Eligible reviews have to be based on the implementation of e-health technologies. Data from eligible reviews will be extracted using a data abstraction form. A thematic analysis of barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The permission of the original authors to update the review was sought and granted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42015017661.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHumansReview Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicTelemedicineChange management < HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID25869685
PMCPMC4401858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.