ArticleDigital health
How to establish digital health ecosystems from the perspective of health service-organizations: A taxonomy developed based on expert interviews conducted as modified Delphi approach.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital health ecosystems may be the next revolution in improving citizens' well-being, health delivery, data management, and health system processes, but solutions have not yet been broadly established. Reasons could be that health service-organizations have misaligned interests or lack capabilities. This study investigates reasons from a multi-health-service-organization perspective, differentiating between payers, insurers, healthcare providers, and innovators, detailing the expected value-adds, preferred participation roles, and required capabilities including a rating assessment. Methods: Findings are based on a taxonomy development methodology, which combines a literature review with semi-structured qualitative expert interviews, conducted using a modified Delphi approach. Interviews were thematically analysed. Results: In total, 21 experts across the four health service-organization groups were interviewed. The capability taxonomy includes a total of 16 capabilities, categorized in three themes: 'Health market', 'organizational', and 'technology and informatic'. Providers expect a value-add from strengthening their health process economics through efficiency gains but reveal the largest capability gaps, especially in 'interoperability' and 'platform'. Innovators' 'technology and informatic' capabilities complement well with those of payers for the 'health market'. Conclusions: We present a health service-organization-specific three-stage approach for establishing digital health ecosystems. Payers and insurers should address their 'technology and informatic' capability gaps, using technical enablers or forming new entities to reduce dependencies from legacy information technology systems. Innovators should clarify their monetization models and create positive awareness for their services, possibly entering the market directly. Providers must address interoperability issues and may require incentives to encourage their participation. Findings suggest governmental policymakers to prioritize three health policy initiatives.
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.