Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32012060›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Digitalizing Health Services by Implementing a Personal Electronic Health Record in Germany: Qualitative Analysis of Fundamental Prerequisites From the Perspective of Selected Experts.

Sabrina Pohlmann, Aline Kunz, Dominik Ose, Eva C Winkler, Antje Brandner, Regina Poss-Doering, Joachim Szecsenyi, Michel Wensing

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sabrina PohlmannDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9379-3799
Aline KunzDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7899-1789
Dominik OseDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5079-2152
Eva C WinklerDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Research Program for Ethics and Patient-Oriented Care, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7460-0154
Antje BrandnerDepartment of Information Technology and Medical Engineering, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5387-624X
Regina Poss-DoeringDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0618-4034
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4483-0028
Michel WensingDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6569-8137
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of a personal electronic health record (PHR) is a central objective of digitalization policies in the German health care system. Corresponding legislation was passed with the 2015 Act for Secure Digital Communication and Applications in the Health Sector (eHealth Act). However, compared with other European countries, Germany still lags behind concerning the implementation of a PHR.

objectiveIn order to explore potential barriers and facilitators for the adoption of a PHR in routine health care in Germany, this paper aims to identify policies, structures, and practices of the German health care system that influence the uptake and use of a PHR.

methodsA total of 33 semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of experts: 23 interviews with different health care professionals and 10 interviews with key actors of the German health care system who were telematics, eHealth, and information technology experts (eHealth experts). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to a content analysis.

resultsFrom the expert perspective, a PHR was basically considered desirable and unavoidable. At the same time, a number of challenges for implementation in Germany have been outlined. Three crucial themes emerged: (1) documentation standards: prevailing processes of the analog bureaucratic paper world, (2) interoperability: the plurality of actors and electronic systems, and (3) political structure: the lack of clear political regulations and political incentive structures.

conclusionsWith regard to the implementation of a PHR, an important precondition of a successful digitalization will be the precedent reform of the system to be digitized. Whether the recently passed Act for Faster Appointments and Better Care will be a step in the right direction remains to be seen.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsGermanyHealth ServicesHumansQualitative ResearchTelemedicinedigitalizationhealth servicesimplementationpersonal electronic health recordqualitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID32012060
PMCPMC7016629
OpenAlexW2981462563

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.