Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29599108›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Lessons Learned From a Living Lab on the Broad Adoption of eHealth in Primary Health Care.

Ilse Catharina Sophia Swinkels, Martine Wilhelmina Johanna Huygens, Tim M Schoenmakers, Wendy Oude Nijeweme-D'Hollosy, Lex van Velsen, Joan Vermeulen, Marian Schoone-Harmsen, Yvonne Jfm Jansen, Onno Cp van Schayck, Roland Friele and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. AI-enabled Living Labs: Accelerating innovation in multiple sclerosis care and research.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

11 authors.

Ilse Catharina Sophia SwinkelsNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1012-2891
Martine Wilhelmina Johanna HuygensCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5033-1399
Tim M SchoenmakersNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1314-9464
Wendy Oude Nijeweme-D'HollosyCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6279-0429
Lex van VelsenCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0599-8706
Joan VermeulenCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0258-7525
Marian Schoone-HarmsenCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6604-5506
Yvonne Jfm JansenCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1283-8260
Onno Cp van SchayckCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3016-1476
Roland FrieleNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5602-826X
Luc de WitteCentre for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3013-2640

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health (eHealth) solutions are considered to relieve current and future pressure on the sustainability of primary health care systems. However, evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth in daily practice is missing. Furthermore, eHealth solutions are often not implemented structurally after a pilot phase, even if successful during this phase. Although many studies on barriers and facilitators were published in recent years, eHealth implementation still progresses only slowly. To further unravel the slow implementation process in primary health care and accelerate the implementation of eHealth, a 3-year Living Lab project was set up. In the Living Lab, called eLabEL, patients, health care professionals, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and research institutes collaborated to select and integrate fully mature eHealth technologies for implementation in primary health care. Seven primary health care centers, 10 SMEs, and 4 research institutes participated.

objectiveThis viewpoint paper aims to show the process of adoption of eHealth in primary care from the perspective of different stakeholders in a qualitative way. We provide a real-world view on how such a process occurs, including successes and failures related to the different perspectives.

methodsReflective and process-based notes from all meetings of the project partners, interview data, and data of focus groups were analyzed systematically using four theoretical models to study the adoption of eHealth in primary care.

resultsThe results showed that large-scale implementation of eHealth depends on the efforts of and interaction and collaboration among 4 groups of stakeholders: patients, health care professionals, SMEs, and those responsible for health care policy (health care insurers and policy makers). These stakeholders are all acting within their own contexts and with their own values and expectations. We experienced that patients reported expected benefits regarding the use of eHealth for self-management purposes, and health care professionals stressed the potential benefits of eHealth and were interested in using eHealth to distinguish themselves from other care organizations. In addition, eHealth entrepreneurs valued the collaboration among SMEs as they were not big enough to enter the health care market on their own and valued the collaboration with research institutes. Furthermore, health care insurers and policy makers shared the ambition and need for the development and implementation of an integrated eHealth infrastructure.

conclusionsFor optimal and sustainable use of eHealth, patients should be actively involved, primary health care professionals need to be reinforced in their management, entrepreneurs should work closely with health care professionals and patients, and the government needs to focus on new health care models stimulating innovations. Only when all these parties act together, starting in local communities with a small range of eHealth tools, the potential of eHealth will be enforced.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansLaboratoriesPrimary Health CareTelemedicineentrepreneurshiphealth personnelimplementationpatient involvementpolicy makersprimary health caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID29599108
PMCPMC5897624

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.