Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34842536›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Successes of and Lessons From the First Joint eHealth Program of the Dutch University Hospitals: Evaluation Study.

Anneloek Rauwerdink, Marise J Kasteleyn, Niels H Chavannes, Marlies P Schijven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. eHealth implementationFrontiers in digital health · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Anneloek RauwerdinkDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7126-3156
Marise J KasteleynDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7751-7516
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8607-9199
Marlies P SchijvenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7013-0116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA total of 8 Dutch university hospitals are at the forefront of contributing meaningfully to a future-proof health care system. To stimulate nationwide collaboration and knowledge-sharing on the topic of evidence-based eHealth, the Dutch university hospitals joined forces from 2016 to 2019 with the first Citrien Fund (CF) program eHealth; 29 eHealth projects with various subjects and themes were selected, supported, and evaluated. To determine the accomplishment of the 10 deliverables for the CF program eHealth and to contribute to the theory and practice of formative evaluation of eHealth in general, a comprehensive evaluation was deemed essential.

objectiveThe first aim of this study is to evaluate whether the 10 deliverables of the CF program eHealth were accomplished. The second aim is to evaluate the progress of the 29 eHealth projects to determine the barriers to and facilitators of the development of the CF program eHealth projects.

methodsTo achieve the first aim of this study, an evaluation study was carried out using an adapted version of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization framework. A mixed methods study, consisting of a 2-part questionnaire and semistructured interviews, was conducted to analyze the second aim of the study.

resultsThe 10 deliverables of the CF program eHealth were successfully achieved. The program yielded 22 tangible eHealth solutions, and significant knowledge on the development and use of eHealth solutions. We have learned that the patient is enthusiastic about accessing and downloading their own medical data but the physicians are more cautious. It was not always possible to implement the Dutch set of standards for interoperability, owing to a lack of information technology (IT) capacities. In addition, more attention needed to be paid to patients with low eHealth skills, and education in such cases is important. The eHealth projects' progress aspects such as planning, IT services, and legal played an important role in the success of the 29 projects. The in-depth interviews illustrated that a novel eHealth solution should fulfill a need, that partners already having the knowledge and means to accelerate development should be involved, that clear communication with IT developers and other stakeholders is crucial, and that having a dedicated project leader with sufficient time is of utmost importance for the success of a project.

conclusionsThe 8 Dutch university hospitals were able to collaborate successfully and stimulate through a bottom-up approach, nationwide eHealth development and knowledge-sharing. In total, 22 tangible eHealth solutions were developed, and significant eHealth knowledge about their development and use was shared. The eHealth projects' progress aspects such as planning, IT services, and legal played an important role in the successful progress of the projects and should therefore be closely monitored when developing novel eHealth solutions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1016/j.ceh.2020.12.002.

Indexed as

TelemedicineCommunicationDelivery of Health CareHospitals, UniversityHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCSIRO frameworkdigital healtheHealthevaluation strategyformative evaluationqualitative researchtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34842536
PMCPMC8663485

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.