Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39966936›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

National eHealth strategies: a comparative study of nine OECD health systems.

Klas Palm, Anders Brantnell, Michael Peolsson, Nurgül Özbek, Gustaf Hedström

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Tensions in large-scale electronic health record implementations: insights from a meta-synthesis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 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

5 authors.

Klas PalmDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. klas.palm@angstrom.uu.se.
Anders BrantnellDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Michael PeolssonSwedish eHealth Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nurgül ÖzbekDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Gustaf HedströmDepartment of Immunology, Experimental and Clinical Oncology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of effective eHealth strategies is critical to enhancing healthcare systems' efficiency and outcomes. However, there is limited comparative analysis of eHealth strategies across health systems, particularly in terms of their vision, objectives, implementation methods, and follow-up processes. This study compares the eHealth strategies of nine health systems, focusing on three key dimensions: vision and objectives, means to achieve objectives, and structures for follow-up.

methodsA comparative qualitative analysis was conducted using publicly available eHealth strategy documents from nine health systems: Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the UK (NHS England), Catalonia (Spain), and the USA (Veterans Affairs). The analysis mapped these systems' visions, objectives, implementation methods, and follow-up structures.

resultsFindings show that most systems articulate clear visions and strategic goals. However, there is considerable variability in the level of detail regarding the means of achieving objectives and structures for follow-up. Australia and Estonia present the most comprehensive strategies, with clear tasks, responsibilities, timelines, and follow-up mechanisms. In contrast, countries like Sweden and Catalonia provide less detailed strategic plans, particularly in terms of follow-up processes.

conclusionsWhile most studied health systems include clear visions and strategic goals, there is variability in the detail and comprehensiveness of their implementation and evaluation frameworks. Strategies with detailed implementation plans and follow-up processes, such as those from Australia and Estonia, offer valuable models. Further research is recommended to explore the practical impact of these strategies on healthcare delivery, patient outcomes, and system efficiency. Additionally, the role of stakeholder involvement in shaping these strategies warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentTelemedicineHumansQualitative ResearchComparative analysisEHealth strategiesFollow-upHealth systemsImplementationPolicy evaluation

Identifiers

PMID39966936
PMCPMC11834240

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.