Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30184560›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2018

A Brief Survey on Six Basic and Reduced eHealth Indicators in Seven Countries in 2017.

Reinhold Haux, Elske Ammenwerth, Sabine Koch, Christoph U Lehmann, Hyeoun-Ae Park, Kaija Saranto, C P Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Market access and value-based pricing of digital health applications in Germany.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Health Information Systems - from Present to Future?Methods of information in medicine · 2018
    Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Reinhold HauxPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Elske AmmenwerthInstitute of Medical Informatics, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Sabine KochDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Health Informatics Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Christoph U LehmannDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Hyeoun-Ae ParkCollege of Nursing and Systems Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kaija SarantoDepartment of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
C P WongHong Kong Society of Medical Informatics, Hong Kong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHolistic, ubiquitous support of patient-centered health care (eHealth) at all health care institutions and in patients' homes through information processing is increasingly supplementing institution-centered care. While eHealth indicators may measure the transition from institution-centered (e.g., hospital-centered) information processing to patient-centered information processing, collecting relevant and timely data for such indicators has been difficult.

objectivesThis article aims to design some basic eHealth indicators, which are easily collected and measure how well information processing supports holistic patient-centered health care, and to evaluate penetrance of patient-centered health as measured by the indicators internationally via an expert survey.

methodsWe identified six basic indicators that measure access of health care professionals, patients, and caregivers to the patient's health record data and the ability of providers, patients, and caregivers to add information in the patient's record. In a survey of international informatics experts, these indicators' penetrance were evaluated for Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States in the summer of 2017.

resultsThe eHealth status measured by the indicators varied significantly between these seven countries. In Finland, most practices measured by the indicators were fully implemented whereas in Germany only one practice was partially realized.

conclusionProgress in the implementation of practices that support patient-centered care could mainly be observed in those countries where the "political will" focused on achieving patient-centered care as opposed to an emphasis on institution-centered care. The six eHealth indicators seem to be useful for measuring national progress in patient-centered care. Future work will extend the number of countries analyzed.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAccess to InformationCaregiversHumansPatient-Centered CareTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30184560
PMCPMC6125136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.