Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38524249›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024

eHealth implementation

Britt E Bente, Anne Van Dongen, Ruud Verdaasdonk, Lisette van Gemert-Pijnen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Beacon Wiki: Mapping oncological information across the European Union.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    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.

Britt E BenteCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Esnchede, Netherlands.
Anne Van DongenCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Esnchede, Netherlands.
Ruud VerdaasdonkSection of Health, Technology and Implementation, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Lisette van Gemert-PijnenCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Esnchede, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The evolution of eHealth development has shifted from standalone tools to comprehensive digital health environments, fostering data exchange among diverse stakeholders and systems. Nevertheless, existing research and implementation frameworks have primarily emphasized technological and organizational aspects of eHealth implementation, overlooking the intricate legal, ethical, and financial considerations. It is essential to discover what legal, ethical, financial, and technological challenges should be considered to ensure successful and sustainable implementation of eHealth. Objective: This review aims to provide insights into barriers and facilitators of legal, ethical, financial, and technological aspects for successful implementation of complex eHealth technologies, which impacts multiple levels and multiple stakeholders. Methods: A scoping review was conducted by querying PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ACM Digital Library (2018-2023) for studies describing the implementation process of eHealth technologies that facilitate data exchange. Studies solely reporting clinical outcomes or conducted outside Europe were excluded. Two independent reviewers selected the studies. A conceptual framework was constructed through axial and inductive coding, extracting data from literature on legal, ethical, financial, and technological aspects of eHealth implementation. This framework guided systematic extraction and interpretation. Results: The search resulted in 7.308 studies that were screened for eligibility, of which 35 (0.48%) were included. Legal barriers revolve around data confidentiality and security, necessitating clear regulatory guidelines. Ethical barriers span consent, responsibility, liability, and validation complexities, necessitating robust frameworks. Financial barriers stem from inadequate funding, requiring (commercial) partnerships and business models. Technological issues include interoperability, integration, and malfunctioning, necessitating strategies for enhancing data reliability, improving accessibility, and aligning eHealth technology with existing systems for smoother integration. Conclusions: This research highlights the multifaceted nature of eHealth implementation, encompassing legal, ethical, financial, and technological considerations. Collaborative stakeholder engagement is paramount for effective decision-making and aligns with the transition from standalone eHealth tools to integrated digital health environments. Identifying suitable stakeholders and recognizing their stakes and values enriches implementation strategies with expertise and guidance across all aspects. Future research should explore the timing of these considerations and practical solutions for regulatory compliance, funding, navigation of responsibility and liability, and business models for reimbursement strategies.

Indexed as

business modeleHealthethicalhealthcareimplementationlegalstakeholder engagementtechnology

Identifiers

PMID38524249
PMCPMC10957613

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.