Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053724›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Assessing Digital Maturity of Hospitals: Viewpoint Comparing National Approaches in Five Countries.

Kathrin Cresswell, Franziska Jahn, Line Silsand, Leanna Woods, Tim Postema, Marion Logan, Sevala Malkic, Elske Ammenwerth

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

8 authors.

Kathrin CresswellUsher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6634-9537
Franziska JahnInstitute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7687-8544
Line SilsandDepartment of Health and Care Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0971-773X
Leanna WoodsQueensland Digital Health Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4811-4608
Tim PostemaAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0001-3141-9950
Marion LoganDigital Leadership and Capabilities, Digital Health and Care, Scottish Government, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-6986-3570
Sevala MalkicDivision Digital Transformation, Norwegian Directorate of Health, Olso, Norway.ORCID 0009-0000-6780-5020
Elske AmmenwerthInstitute of Medical Informatics, UMIT TIROL, Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3244-6918

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital maturity assessments can inform strategic decision-making. However, national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of health systems are in their infancy, and there is limited insight into the context and processes associated with such assessments. This viewpoint article describes and compares national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals. We reviewed 5 national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals in Queensland (Australia), Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Scotland, exploring context, drivers, and approaches to measure digital maturity in each country. We observed a common focus on interoperability, and assessment findings were used to shape national digital health strategies. Indicators were broadly aligned, but 4 of 5 countries developed their own tailored indicator sets. Key topic areas across countries included interoperability, capabilities, leadership, governance, and infrastructure. Analysis of indicators was centralized, but data were shared with participating organizations. Only 1 setting conducted an academic evaluation. Major challenges of digital maturity assessment included the high cost and time required for data collection, questions about measurement accuracy, difficulties in consistent long-term tracking of indicators, and potential biases due to self-reporting. We also observed tensions between the practical feasibility of the process with the depth and breadth required by the complexity of the topic and tensions between national and local data needs. There are several key challenges in assessing digital maturity in hospitals nationally that influence the validity and reliability of output. These need to be explicitly acknowledged when making decisions informed by assessments and monitored over time.

Indexed as

Hospital Information SystemsHospitalsGermanyNetherlandsNorwayQueenslandScotlandassessmentAustraliaAustraliandatadata collectiondecision makingdigital maturityhealth systemshospitalsinfancylocal datalong-term trackingmonitoringpractical feasibilityqualitative thematic analysisself-reporting

Identifiers

PMID40053724
PMCPMC11926443

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.