ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2020
Elaborating Models of eHealth Governance: Qualitative Systematic Review.
Review 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Governance in Health Systems: Systematic Review of Frameworks and Integrative Model Proposal.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Digital interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative focus group study on the perspectives of rheumatology care providers in Germany.BMC rheumatology · 2026Article
- E-Health implementation in Pakistan: challenges, opportunities, and the path forward.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Avoiding a Telemedicine Regional Battle - Lessons From Republic of Korea's Platform War for Czechia and Beyond.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Investigating the Norwegian eHealth Governance Model: Document Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Internet Healthcare Policy Analysis, Evaluation, and Improvement Path: Multidimensional Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development of an Evidence-Based Conceptual Model of the Health Care Sector Under Digital Transformation: Integrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Sharing Government Health Data With the Private Sector: Community Attitudes Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Enabling Guidelines for the Adoption of eHealth Solutions: Scoping Review.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge-scale national eHealth policy programs have gained attention not only for benefits but also for several unintended consequences and failed expectations. Given the complex and mixed accounts of the results, questions have been raised on how large-scale digitalization programs are governed to reach health policy goals of quality improvement and equal access along with necessary digital transformations. In this qualitative systematic review, we investigate the following question: How is governance implemented and considered in the studies included in the qualitative review?
objectiveThe aim of this study is to arrive at informed and recognizable conceptualizations and considerations of models of governance connected to eHealth, as presented and discussed in the scientific literature. In turn, we hope our results will help inform the discussion of how to govern such processes to obtain collectively negotiated objectives.
methodsA qualitative systematic review is a method for integrating or comparing with the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for "themes" or "constructs" that lie in or across individual qualitative studies. This type of review produces a narrative synthesis with thematic analysis and includes interpretive conceptual models. The goal is an interpretation and broadens the understanding of a particular phenomenon. We searched the PubMed database using predefined search terms and selected papers published from 2010 onwards. We specified the criteria for selection and quality assessment.
resultsThe search returned 220 papers. We selected 44 abstracts for full-text reading, and 11 papers were included for full-text synthesis. On the basis of the 11 papers, we constructed four governance models to categorize and conceptualize the findings. The models are political governance, normally depicting top-down processes; medical governance, which normally depicts bottom-up processes; the internet and global model, emphasizing international business strategies coupled with the internet; self-governance, which builds upon the development of the internet and Internet of Things, which has paved the way for personal governance and communication of one's own health data.
conclusionsCollective negotiations between the nation-state and global policy actors, medical and self-governance actors, and global business and industry actors are essential. Technological affordances represent both positive and negative opportunities concerning the realization of health policy goals, and future studies should scrutinize this dynamic.
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.