Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29066429›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

What is eHealth (6)? Development of a Conceptual Model for eHealth: Qualitative Study with Key Informants.

Tim Shaw, Deborah McGregor, Melissa Brunner, Melanie Keep, Anna Janssen, Stewart Barnet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

129 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effectiveness of e-health interventions for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Tim Shaw *Research in Implementation Science and eHealth, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0783-1918
Deborah McGregor *Research in Implementation Science and eHealth, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2234-7331
Melissa Brunner *Research in Implementation Science and eHealth, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6823-5189
Melanie Keep *Research in Implementation Science and eHealth, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9516-0303
Anna JanssenResearch in Implementation Science and eHealth, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6611-9651
Stewart BarnetResearch in Implementation Science and eHealth, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5078-9922

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite rapid growth in eHealth research, there remains a lack of consistency in defining and using terms related to eHealth. More widely cited definitions provide broad understanding of eHealth but lack sufficient conceptual clarity to operationalize eHealth and enable its implementation in health care practice, research, education, and policy. Definitions that are more detailed are often context or discipline specific, limiting ease of translation of these definitions across the breadth of eHealth perspectives and situations. A conceptual model of eHealth that adequately captures its complexity and potential overlaps is required. This model must also be sufficiently detailed to enable eHealth operationalization and hypothesis testing.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a conceptual practice-based model of eHealth to support health professionals in applying eHealth to their particular professional or discipline contexts.

methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with key informants (N=25) from organizations involved in health care delivery, research, education, practice, governance, and policy to explore their perspectives on and experiences with eHealth. We used purposeful sampling for maximum diversity. Interviews were coded and thematically analyzed for emergent domains.

resultsThematic analyses revealed 3 prominent but overlapping domains of eHealth: (1) health in our hands (using eHealth technologies to monitor, track, and inform health), (2) interacting for health (using digital technologies to enable health communication among practitioners and between health professionals and clients or patients), and (3) data enabling health (collecting, managing, and using health data). These domains formed a model of eHealth that addresses the need for clear definitions and a taxonomy of eHealth while acknowledging the fluidity of this area and the strengths of initiatives that span multiple eHealth domains.

conclusionsThis model extends current understanding of eHealth by providing clearly defined domains of eHealth while highlighting the benefits of using digital technologies in ways that cross several domains. It provides the depth of perspectives and examples of eHealth use that are lacking in previous research. On the basis of this model, we suggest that eHealth initiatives that are most impactful would include elements from all 3 domains.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchDelivery of Health CareHumansTelemedicineeHealthhealth careinterviewmodels, theoreticalqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29066429
PMCPMC5676031

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.