Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679867›Full record

ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2022

[Digital Transformation of Healthcare: A Delphi Study of the Working Groups Digital Health and Validation and Linkage of Secondary Data of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF)].

Horst Christian Vollmar, Clarissa Lemmen, Ursula Kramer, Jutta G Richter, Madlen Fiebig, Falk Hoffmann, Marcus Redaèlli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Digital Healthcare: Requirements for a Successful Transformation].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024
    Article
  3. [Acceptance of Teledermatology: Results of a Survey of General Practitioners and Dermatologists in Saxony (Germany)].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Horst Christian Vollmar *Abteilung für Allgemeinmedizin (AM RUB), Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0117-7188
Clarissa Lemmen *Institut für Gesundheitsökonomie und Klinische Epidemiologie (IGKE) , Universität zu Köln Medizinische Fakultät, Koln, Germany.
Ursula KramerGesundheitskommunikation, Sanawork, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Jutta G RichterPoliklinik, Funktionsbereich & Hiller Forschungszentrum für Rheumatologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Madlen FiebigCompetence in Nursing and Healthcare, ePA-CC GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Falk HoffmannDepartment für Versorgungsforschung, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Marcus RedaèlliInstitut für Gesundheitsökonomie und Klinische Epidemiologie (IGKE) , Universität zu Köln Medizinische Fakultät, Koln, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aim of the studyThe digital transformation in healthcare is also of fundamental importance for healthcare research. For this reason, experts should agree on, prioritize and identify key topics for a medium-term strategy of the German Network for Health Services Research and classify the general development of digital health in the context of health services research.

methodsBetween April and September 2018, the working groups "Digital Health" and "Validation and Linkage of Secondary Data" of the German Network for Health Services Research were asked to submit their expertise online using the methodological approach of a Delphi study. For this purpose, a multi-stage modified Delphi method with quantitative and qualitative approaches was chosen. Initially, a list of theses was drawn from the network's published position papers on digital health applications and medical apps. A total of 131 statements were formulated. The final survey instrument included questions on the biographical background of the participants, 42 developed items (33 statements and 8 open-ended questions), and one free-text field to add further aspects. Items were evaluated with a five-point Likert scale. A statement was accepted if the agreement rate was 75% or higher.

resultsOf the 110 potential participants, 50 (46%) took part in the first round and 39 (36%) in the second round of the Delphi survey. In the first round, there was a clear result for 24 of 33 statements. There were 20 statements "agreed with" and four "disagreed with." Nine statements were between 60 and 75% and were presented to the participants again for evaluation in the second round. In round two, of these nine statements, four statements were "agreed with" and five statements were "disagreed with." Digital Health Literacy" emerged as a particular focus in this Delphi study.

conclusionIn this Delphi study, experts were involved in selecting and prioritizing possible topics for the Digital Health working group and assessing future developments in digital health in the context of health services research. The results reflect both the expectations and interests of the members and are largely consistent with the recommendations of the report "Digitalization for Health" made by the expert council for assessing developments in the health sector.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchDelphi TechniqueGermanyHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35679867
PMCPMC11248255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.