Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30427924›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

eHealth for people with multimorbidity: Results from the ICARE4EU project and insights from the "10 e's" by Gunther Eysenbach.

Maria Gabriella Melchiorre, Giovanni Lamura, Francesco Barbabella, ICARE4EU Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Digital Health Transition in Rheumatology: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Maria Gabriella MelchiorreCentre for Socio-Economic Research on Ageing, National Institute of Health and Science on Ageing, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4428-3749
Giovanni LamuraCentre for Socio-Economic Research on Ageing, National Institute of Health and Science on Ageing, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
Francesco BarbabellaCentre for Socio-Economic Research on Ageing, National Institute of Health and Science on Ageing, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
ICARE4EU Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with multimorbidity, especially older people, have complex health and social needs, and require an integrated care approach. In this respect, eHealth could be of support. This paper aims to describe the implementation of eHealth technologies in integrated care programs for people with multimorbidity in Europe, and to analyse related benefits and barriers according to outcomes from ICARE4EU study and within the more general conceptual framework of the "10 e's" in eHealth by Gunther Eysenbach.

methodsIn 2014, ICARE4EU project identified 101 integrated care programs in 24 European countries. Expert organizations and managers of the programs completed an on-line questionnaire addressing several aspects including the adoption of eHealth. Findings from this questionnaire were analyzed, by linking in particular benefits and barriers of eHealth with the "10 e's" by Eysenbach (Efficiency, Enhancing, Evidence-based, Empowerment, Encouragement, Education, Enabling, Extending, Ethics, and Equity).

resultsOut of 101 programs, 85 adopted eHealth tools, of which 42 focused explicitly on older people. eHealth could improve care integration/management, quality of care/life and cost-efficiency, whereas inadequate funding represents a major barrier. The "10 e's" by Eysenbach seem to show contact points with ICARE4EU findings, in particular when referring to positive aspects of eHealth such as Efficiency and Enhancing quality of care/life, although Empowerment/Education of patients, care Equity and Ethics issues seem crucial in this respect. Encouragement of a new relationship patient-health professional, and Enabling standardized exchange of electronic information, represent further aspects impacting integration/management of care.

conclusionsAspects of eHealth, which emerged as benefits and barriers impacting integration/management of care, as well as cost-efficiency and quality of care/life, can be identified on the basis of both ICARE4EU findings and the "10 e's" in eHealth by Eysenbach. They could represent objectives of new policies for supporting the deployment of eHealth technologies within integrated care across Europe.

Indexed as

MultimorbidityAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHumansQuality of Health CareQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30427924
PMCPMC6241125

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.