ArticleJournal of global health2019
Status of health information exchange: a comparison of six countries.
Article in Journal of global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Information Exchange: Contributions from 2023.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Pooled it
- Health Outcomes and Healthcare Efficiencies Associated with the Use of Electronic Health Records in Hospital Emergency Departments: a Systematic Review.Journal of medical systems · 2020Pooled it
- Designing a novel hybrid healthcare teleconsultation network: a benchtop study of telepathology in Iran and a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Pooled it
- Health Information Exchange between Specialists and General Practitioners Benefits Rural Patients.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Trial
- Perceived value but persistent barriers: A qualitative study of healthcare worker experiences with the Impilo electronic health record system in rural Zimbabwe.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Are Traditional Registries Becoming Obsolete in the Modern Digital Health Ecosystem?Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Endoshare: a publicly available, surgeons-friendly solution to de-identify and manage surgical videos.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Gaps in care across the cancer screening continuum for cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Influence of Previous Emergency Department Visit Information on Care of Current Patients.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Data-Driven Defragmentation: Achieving Value-Based Sarcoma and Rare Cancer Care Through Integrated Care Pathway Mapping.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Delivering Guideline-Concordant Care for Patients With High-Risk HPV and Normal Cytologic Findings.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Development and implementation of an interoperable local health information exchange platform for the attainment of universal health coverage in the Philippines.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Consent mechanisms and default effects in health information exchange in Japan.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Article
- Accessibility of Criteria to Exit Cervical Cancer Screening at Age 65 Years in the Electronic Health Record.O&G open · 2024Article
- Trust as moral currency: Perspectives of health researchers in sub-Saharan Africa on strategies to promote equitable data sharing.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- New Horizons for Consumer-Mediated Health Information Exchange.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Article
- Older adults experience of transition to the community from the emergency department: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Digital Health Convergence Workshop: The Kenyan experience.Oxford open digital health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth information exchange (HIE) is frequently cited as an important objective of health information technology investment because of its potential to improve quality, reduce cost, and increase patient satisfaction. In this paper we examine the status and practices of HIE in six countries, drawn from a range of higher and lower income regions.
methodsFor each of the countries represented - China, England, India, Scotland, Switzerland, and the United States - we describe the state of current practice of HIE with reference to two scenarios: transfer of care and referral. For each country we discuss national objectives, barriers and plans for further advancing clinical information exchange.
resultsThe countries vary widely in levels of adoption of EHRs, availability of health information in electronic form suitable for HIE, and in the information technology infrastructure to be used for transmission. Common themes emerged, however, including an expectation that information will be exchanged rather than gathered anew, the need for incentives to promote information exchange, and concerns about data security and patient confidentiality.
conclusionsAlthough the ability to transfer health information to where it is most needed is nearly always mentioned as an advantage of HIE adoption, there are wide differences in the degree to which this has been achieved to support the scenarios used in this study. Nevertheless, these differences indicate varying stages of progress along a comparable pathway, with similar barriers being identified in the countries described. In some cases, these have been partially surmounted while elsewhere work is needed. We reflect on contextual factors influencing the status and direction of HIE efforts in different global regions and their implications for progress.
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.