Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39300456›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2024

The impact of eHealth use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era: a systematic review.

Jelle Keuper, Lilian H D van Tuyl, Ellemarijn de Geit, Corinne Rijpkema, Elize Vis, Ronald Batenburg, Robert Verheij

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Jelle KeuperNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR, Netherlands. j.keuper@nivel.nl.
Lilian H D van TuylNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR, Netherlands.
Ellemarijn de GeitNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR, Netherlands.
Corinne RijpkemaNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR, Netherlands.
Elize VisNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR, Netherlands.
Ronald BatenburgNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR, Netherlands.
Robert VerheijNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, eHealth has received much attention as an opportunity to increase efficiency within healthcare organizations. Adoption of eHealth might consequently help to solve perceived health workforce challenges, including labor shortages and increasing workloads among primary care professionals, who serve as the first point of contact for healthcare in many countries. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of general eHealth use and specific eHealth services use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era.

methodsThe databases of CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, IEEE Xplore, Medline ALL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched, using combinations of keywords including 'eHealth', 'workload', and 'general practice'. Data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies were independently performed by at least two reviewers. Publications were included for the period 2010 - 2020, before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

resultsIn total, 208 studies describing the impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload were identified. We found that two eHealth services were mainly investigated within this context, namely electronic health records and digital communication services, and that the largest share of the included studies used a qualitative study design. Overall, a small majority of the studies found that eHealth led to an increase in general practice workload. However, results differed between the various types of eHealth services, as a large share of the studies also reported a reduction or no change in workload.

conclusionsThe impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload is ambiguous. While a small majority of the effects indicated that eHealth increased workload in general practice, a large share of the effects also showed that eHealth use reduced workload or had no impact. These results do not imply a definitive conclusion, which underscores the need for further explanatory research. Various factors, including the study setting, system design, and the phase of implementation, may influence this impact and should be taken into account when general practices adopt new eHealth services. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020199897; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=199897 .

Indexed as

COVID-19General PracticeTelemedicineWorkloadElectronic Health RecordsHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2eHealthGeneral practiceImpactSystematic reviewWorkload

Identifiers

PMID39300456
PMCPMC11414290

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.