ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018
Lessons Learned From a Living Lab on the Broad Adoption of eHealth in Primary Health Care.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Challenge of Integrating eHealth Into Health Care: Systematic Literature Review of the Donabedian Model of Structure, Process, and Outcome.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- The Role of Health Technologies in Multicomponent Primary Care Interventions: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of eHealth Services: Systematic Literature Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Current State of Digital Biomarker Technologies for Real-Life, Home-Based Monitoring of Cognitive Function for Mild Cognitive Impairment to Mild Alzheimer Disease and Implications for Clinical Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of the Be Prepared mHealth App on Recovery of Physical Functioning After Major Elective Surgery: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Trial
- AI-enabled Living Labs: Accelerating innovation in multiple sclerosis care and research.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Review
- Communities of Practice and Living Labs: A Scoping Review of Principles and Methodologies for Involvement of Lived Experience Experts in Health and Healthcare Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A Virtual Living Lab Platform Codeveloped for Mental Health in Youth-Onset Type 2 Diabetes (BrightSpark Care Lab): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Towards a forward-looking ethnobiology: envisioning and co-creating biocultural futures.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2025Article
- Collaborating Across Organizational Boundaries to Develop, Evaluate, and Implement eHealth: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation: an international consensus study.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
- Living Labs in digital health: a collaborative ecosystem approach for continuum of care.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Perceived Barriers and Facilitators Regarding the Implementation of Gamification to Promote Physical Activity in the Neighborhood: Interview Study Among Intermediaries.JMIR serious games · 2024Article
- An iterative approach to developing a multifaceted implementation strategy for a complex eHealth intervention within clinical practice.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Guide Development for eHealth Interventions Targeting People With a Low Socioeconomic Position: Participatory Design Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Physician perspectives on chronic pain management: barriers and the use of eHealth in the COVID-19 era.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Mapping Factors That Affect the Uptake of Digital Therapeutics Within Health Systems: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: An International Survey of the Experiences and Needs of Healthcare Professionals.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Stakeholders barriers and facilitators for the implementation of a personalised digital care pathway: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- How Do We Know Co-Created Solutions Work Effectively within the Real World of People Living with Dementia? Learning Methodological Lessons from a Co-Creation-to-Evaluation Case Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.