Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30488379›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2019

Expectations and perceived barriers to widespread implementation of e‑Health in cardiology practice: Results from a national survey in the Netherlands.

R W Treskes, T X Wildbergh, M J Schalij, R W C Scherptong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Mobile health vs. standard care after cardiac surgery: results of The Box 2.0 study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

R W TreskesDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. r.w.treskes@lumc.nl.
T X WildberghDepartment of Cardiology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
M J SchalijDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
R W C ScherptongDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExpectations of physicians concerning e‑Health and perceived barriers to implementation in clinical practice are scarcely reported in the literature. The purpose of this study was to assess these aspects of cardiovascular e‑Health.

methodsA survey was sent to members of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology. In total, the questionnaire contained 30 questions about five topics: personal use of smartphones, digital communication between respondents and patients, current e‑Health implementation in clinical practice, expectations about e‑Health and perceived barriers for e‑Health implementation. Age, personal use of smartphones and professional environment were noted as baseline characteristics.

resultsIn total, 255 respondents filled out the questionnaire (response rate 25%); 89.4% of respondents indicated that they considered e‑Health to be clinically beneficial, improving patient satisfaction (90.2%), but also that it will increase the workload (83.9%). Age was a negative predictor and personal use of smartphones was a positive predictor of having high expectations. Lack of reimbursement was identified by 66.7% of respondents as a barrier to e‑Health implementation, as well as a lack of reliable devices (52.9%) and a lack of data integration with electronic medical records (EMRs) (69.4%).

conclusionCardiologists are in general positive about the possibilities of e‑Health implementation in routine clinical care; however, they identify deficient data integration into the EMR, reimbursement issues and lack of reliable devices as major barriers. Age and personal use of smartphones are predictors of expectations of e‑Health, but the professional working environment is not.

Indexed as

e-Healthgeneral cardiologyimplementation

Identifiers

PMID30488379
PMCPMC6311154

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.