Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31597502›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of general practice2019

SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 1: Concepts, conditions and challenges.

Rianne M J J van der Kleij, Marise J Kasteleyn, Eline Meijer, Tobias N Bonten, Elisa J F Houwink, Martine Teichert, Sanne van Luenen, Rajesh Vedanthan, Andrea Evers, Josip Car and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of general practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

80 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. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Rianne M J J van der KleijDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marise J KasteleynDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Eline MeijerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Tobias N BontenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Elisa J F HouwinkDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Martine TeichertDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sanne van LuenenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rajesh VedanthanDepartment of Population Health, Section for Global Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Andrea EversDepartment of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Josip CarCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Hilary PinnockAllergy and Respiratory Research Group, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary care is challenged to provide high quality, accessible and affordable care for an increasingly ageing, complex, and multimorbid population. To counter these challenges, primary care professionals need to take up new and innovative practices, including eHealth. eHealth applications hold the promise to overcome some difficulties encountered in the care of people with complex medical and social needs in primary care. However, many unanswered questions regarding (cost) effectiveness, integration with healthcare, and acceptability to patients, caregivers, and professionals remain to be elucidated. What conditions need to be met? What challenges need to be overcome? What downsides must be dealt with? This first paper in a series on eHealth in primary care introduces basic concepts and examines opportunities for the uptake of eHealth in primary care. We illustrate that although the potential of eHealth in primary care is high, several conditions need to be met to ensure that safe and high-quality eHealth is developed for and implemented in primary care. eHealth research needs to be optimized; ensuring evidence-based eHealth is available. Blended care, i.e. combining face-to-face care with remote options, personalized to the individual patient should be considered. Stakeholders need to be involved in the development and implementation of eHealth via co-creation processes, and design should be mindful of vulnerable groups and eHealth illiteracy. Furthermore, a global perspective on eHealth should be adopted, and eHealth ethics, patients' safety and privacy considered.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansPatient SafetyPrimary Health CareTelemedicinechallengeseHealthprimary carevision

Identifiers

PMID31597502
PMCPMC6853224

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.