National monitoring and evaluation of eHealth: a scoping review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Villumsen S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7309231 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
National monitoring and evaluation of eHealth: a scoping review.
Villumsen Sidsel S Adler-Milstein Julia J Nøhr Christian C
JAMIA open 20200320 1
<h4>Objective</h4>There has been substantial growth in eHealth over the past decade, driven by expectations of improved healthcare system performance. Despite substantial eHealth investment, little is known about the monitoring and evaluation strategies for gauging progress in eHealth availability and use. This scoping review aims to map the existing literature and depict the predominant approaches and methodological recommendations to national and regional monitoring and evaluation of eHealth a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAccessibility is acknowledged as a key to inclusion in the Convention of Rights for People with Disabilities. An inaccessible design can result in exclusion from eHealth and cause disability among people who have impairments.ObjectiveThis scoping literature review aimed to investigate how eHealth services have been developed and evaluated regarding accessibility for people with impairments.MethodsIn line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping studies and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a search in 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, IEEE, and Web of Science) in October 2020 and an update of the search in June 2022. The search strategy was structured according to the PICO model as follows: Population/Problem, digital accessibility for users with impairment; Intervention, health care delivered by any digital solution; Comparison, not applicable; Outcome, use of and adherence to (1) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), (2) other accessibility guidelines, and (3) other means, for designing or evaluating accessibility in eHealth services. A Boolean search was conducted by combining terms related to accessibility and eHealth. All authors participated in screening abstracts according to the eligibility criteria. Each publication, containing a potentially relevant abstract, was read (full text) and assessed for eligibility by 2 authors independently and pairwise. Publications deemed eligible were read by all authors and discussed for consensus.ResultsA total of 8643 publications were identified. After abstract screening, 131 publications remained for full-text reading. Of those, 116 publications were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Fifteen publications involving studies of 12 eHealth services were included in the study. Of the 15 publications, 2 provided a definition of accessibility, 5 provided an explanation of accessibility, and 8 did not provide any explanation. Five publications used the WCAG to evaluate accessibility when developing eHealth services. One publication used International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 29138, ISO 2941, and ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 30071-1 standards together with the Spanish Association for Standardization (UNE) 139803 standard. Eleven publications used other means to address accessibility, including text-level grading; literature review about accessibility; user tests, focus groups, interviews, and design workshops with target groups of patients, relatives, and health care professionals; and comparative analysis of existing technical solutions to provide information about useful requirements.ConclusionsAlthough a clear definition of accessibility can enhance operationalization and thus measurability when evaluating accessibility in eHealth services, accessibility was insufficiently defined in most of the included studies. Further, accessibility guidelines and standards were used to a very limited extent in the development and evaluation of eHealth services. Guidelines for developing complex interventions that include guidance for accessibility are motivated to ensure that accessibility will be considered systematically in eHealth services.
| S-EPMC10472171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveOur scoping review aims to assess what legal, ethical, and socio-technical factors contribute to or inhibit the success of national eHealth system implementations. In addition, our review seeks to describe the characteristics and benefits of eHealth systems.Materials and methodsWe conducted a scoping review of literature published in English between January 2000 and 2020 using a keyword search on 5 databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEEXplore, and ProQuest. After removal of duplicates, abstract screening, and full-text filtering, 86 articles were included from 8276 search results.ResultsWe identified 17 stakeholder groups, 6 eHealth Systems areas, and 15 types of legal regimes and standards. In-depth textual analysis revealed challenges mainly in implementation, followed by ethico-legal and data-related aspects. Key factors influencing success include promoting trust of the system, ensuring wider acceptance among users, reconciling the system with legal requirements, and ensuring an adaptable technical platform.DiscussionResults revealed support for decentralized implementations because they carry less implementation and engagement challenges than centralized ones. Simultaneously, due to decentralized systems' interoperability issues, federated implementations (with a set of national standards) might be preferable.ConclusionThis study identifies the primary socio-technical, legal, and ethical factors that challenge and contribute to the success of eHealth system implementations. This study also describes the complexities and characteristics of existing eHealth implementation programs, and suggests guidance for resolving the identified challenges.
| S-EPMC8363797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundeHealth is the use of information and communication technologies to enable and improve health and health care services. It is crucial that medical students receive adequate training in eHealth as they will work in clinical environments that are increasingly being enabled by technology. This trend is especially accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic as it complicates traditional face-to-face medical consultations and highlights the need for innovative approaches in health care.ObjectiveThis review aims to evaluate the extent and nature of the existing literature on medical student training in eHealth. In detail, it aims to examine what this education consists of, the barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for improving the medical curriculum. This review focuses primarily on some key technologies such as mobile health (mHealth), the internet of things (IoT), telehealth, and artificial intelligence (AI).MethodsSearches were performed on 4 databases, and articles were selected based on the eligibility criteria. Studies had to be related to the training of medical students in eHealth. The eligibility criteria were studies published since 2014, from a peer-reviewed journal, and written in either English or French. A grid was used to extract and chart data.ResultsThe search resulted in 25 articles. The most studied aspect was mHealth. eHealth as a broad concept, the IoT, AI, and programming were least covered. A total of 52% (13/25) of all studies contained an intervention, mostly regarding mHealth, electronic health records, web-based medical resources, and programming. The findings included various barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for improving the medical curriculum.ConclusionsTrends have emerged regarding the suboptimal present state of eHealth training and barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for optimal training. We recommend that additional studies be conducted on the following themes: barriers, enhancing factors, propositions for optimal training, competencies that medical students should acquire, learning outcomes from eHealth training, and patient care outcomes from this training. Additional studies should be conducted on eHealth and each of its aspects, especially on the IoT, AI, programming, and eHealth as a broad concept. Training in eHealth is critical to medical practice in clinical environments that are increasingly being enabled by technology. The need for innovative approaches in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic further highlights the relevance of this training.
| S-EPMC7519432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.
| S-EPMC7081137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe strategic importance of monitoring social determinants of health (SDH) and health equity and inequity has been a central focus in global discussions around the 2011 Rio Political Declaration on SDH and the Millennium Development Goals. This study is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) equity-oriented analysis of linkages between health and other sectors (EQuAL) project, which aims to define a framework for monitoring SDH and health equity.ObjectivesThis review provides a global summary and analysis of the domains and indicators that have been used in recent studies covering the SDH. These studies are considered here within the context of indicators proposed by the WHO EQuAL project. The objectives are as follows: to describe the range of international and national studies and the types of indicators most frequently used; report how they are used in causal explanation of the SDH; and identify key priorities and challenges reported in current research for national monitoring of the SDH.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of published SDH studies in the PubMed(®) database to obtain evidence of socio-economic indicators. We evaluated, selected, and extracted data from national scale studies published from 2004 to 2014. The research included papers published in English, Italian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 96 articles. SDH monitoring is well reported in the scientific literature independent of the economic level of the country and magnitude of deprivation in population groups. The research methods were mostly quantitative and many papers used multilevel and multivariable statistical analyses and indexes to measure health inequalities and SDH. In addition to the usual economic indicators, a high number of socio-economic indicators were used. The indicators covered a broad range of social dimensions, which were given consideration within and across different social groups. Many indicators included in the WHO EQuAL framework were not common in the studies in this review due to their intersectoral and interdisciplinary nature.ConclusionsOur review illustrates that the attention to SDH monitoring has grown in terms of its importance and complexity within the scientific health literature. We identified a need to make indicators more wide-ranging in order to include a broader range of social conditions. The WHO EQuAL framework can provide intersectoral and interdisciplinary means of building a more comprehensive standardised approach to monitoring the SDH and improving equity in health.
| S-EPMC4744868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, public health care is under increasing pressure, an economic burden currently amplified by the COVID-19 outbreak. With the recognition that universal health coverage improves the health of a population and reduces health inequalities, universal health coverage has been acknowledged as a priority goal. To meet the global needs in a population with increased chronic illness and longer life expectancy, the health care system is in dire need of new, emerging technologies. eHealth solutions as a method of delivery may have an impact on quality of care and health care costs. As such, it is important to study methods previously used to avoid suboptimal implementation and promote general guidelines to further develop eHealth solutions.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore and thematically categorize a selected representation of early phase studies on eHealth technologies, focusing on papers that are under development or undergoing testing. Further, we want to assess enablers and barriers in terms of usability, scaling, and data management of eHealth implementation. The aim of this study to explore early development phase and feasibility studies was an intentional effort to provide applicable guidelines for evaluation at different stages of implementation.MethodsA structured search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane to identify and provide insight in current eHealth technology and methodology under development and gain insight in the future potential of eHealth technologies.ResultsIn total, 27 articles were included in this review. The clinical studies were categorized thematically by illness comparing 4 technology types deemed relevant: apps/web-based technology, sensor technology, virtual reality, and television. All eHealth assessment and implementation studies were categorized by their focus point: usability, scaling, or data management. Studies assessing the effect of eHealth were divided into feasibility studies, qualitative studies, and heuristic assessments. Studies focusing on usability (16/27) mainly addressed user involvement and learning curve in the adoption of eHealth, while the majority of scaling studies (6/27) focused on strategic and organizational aspects of upscaling eHealth solutions. Studies focusing on data management (5/27) addressed data processing and data sensitivity in adoption and diffusion of eHealth. Efficient processing of data in a secure manner, as well as user involvement and feedback, both throughout small studies and during upscaling, were the important enablers considered for successful implementation of eHealth.ConclusionseHealth interventions have considerable potential to improve lifestyle changes and adherence to treatment recommendations. To promote efficient implementation and scaling, user involvement to promote user-friendliness, secure and adaptable data management, and strategical considerations needs to be addressed early in the development process. eHealth should be assessed during its development into health services. The wide variation in interventions and methodology makes comparison of the results challenging and calls for standardization of methods.
| S-EPMC8122291 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prioritization of sustainable patient-centered care in contemporary health care has resulted in an increased focus on patient empowerment, which in turn is considered to facilitate patient independence, self-management, and self-efficacy. However, a definitional consensus of empowerment remains elusive, impeding efforts to translate the conceptual ideals of empowerment into a measurable entity associated with changes in health care behavior or outcomes. The rapid integration of technology in health care serves to add another layer of complexity in the measurability and operationalization of empowerment and helps to create a specific context in which this conceptual entity should be further examined.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this scoping review was to explore the concept of patient empowerment within the electronic health (eHealth) context. A further focus on the association or measurement of this concept in conjunction with tethered patient portal use was also employed.MethodsIn this scoping review, a six-step framework was used to guide the search and paper selection process. The review was initiated with two broad research questions, which are as follows: (1) What is the relationship between empowerment and the use of eHealth technologies from a patient perspective? (2) How is patient empowerment (and/or engagement or activation) influenced by accessing personal health information through a tethered patient portal? Multiple databases were employed in a comprehensive search strategy, and papers were primarily evaluated and selected for inclusion by 2 review authors, and a third author was consulted to resolve any issues in reaching consensus.ResultsFrom an initial count of 1387 publications, this review returned nine systematic or literature review papers and 19 empirical studies that pertained to patient empowerment (and/or engagement and activation) in relation to the use of tethered patient portals providing access to electronic health records (EHRs). Of the 19 empirical publications, only four were found to have used specific patient empowerment measures with significant variety in their identified conceptual elements.ConclusionsThere is a persistent lack of conceptual clarity in patient empowerment research, and this has extended to study within the eHealth context. The interchangeable use or conflation of terms such as patient empowerment, engagement, and activation, has further complicated the advancement of distinct conceptual measures. To more strongly align changes in patient empowerment with supportive eHealth solutions, the challenges of achieving a consensus on how best to operationalize and measure patient empowerment must be met.
| S-EPMC5640823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveeHealth-mediated interventions have been proposed as one option to support self-management in those with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This scoping review aimed to chart the evidence regarding eHealth modalities, musculoskeletal diagnosis, and outcomes of eHealth-mediated self-management support interventions in persons with MSDs and identify any gaps within the literature.MethodsSix electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), 7 grey literature sources (eg, OpenGrey), and reference and citation lists of included studies were searched from database inception to July 2020. Published studies of adult participants with a MSD utilizing an eHealth intervention to support self-management were included. Studies were limited to those published in English. Two reviewers independently screened all studies. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and reviewed by another reviewer.ResultsAfter screening 3377 titles and abstracts followed by 176 full texts, 87 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The majority were published in the last 5 years (n = 48; 55%), with almost one-third originating in the United States (n = 28; 32%). The most common eHealth modality type was internet based (n = 22; 35%), with almost one-half (n = 41; 47%) of the included studies involving participants with widespread musculoskeletal symptoms. The most commonly reported outcomes were related to body functions (ie, pain intensity) (n = 67; 45%), closely followed by activities and participation (ie, function) (n = 65; 44%), with environmental factors (ie, health care utilization) the least commonly reported (n = 17; 20%).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation within the eHealth-mediated self-management support intervention literature. Research is needed on the role of eHealth-mediated self-management support interventions across a broad range of MSDs to guide clinical practice.ImpactThis scoping review has identified gaps in the literature relating to specific eHealth modalities, musculoskeletal diagnoses, and health care utilization data, which should guide future research.
| S-EPMC8994513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Uncorrected refractive error is a major cause of vision impairment, and is indexed by visual acuity. Availability of vision assessment is limited in low/middle-income countries and in minority groups in high income countries. eHealth tools offer a solution; two-thirds of the globe own mobile devices. This is a scoping review of the number and quality of tools for self-testing visual acuity. Software applications intended for professional clinical use were excluded. Keyword searches were conducted on Google online, Google Play and iOS store. The first 100 hits in each search were screened against inclusion criteria. After screening, 42 tools were reviewed. Tools assessed near and distance vision. About half (n?=?20) used bespoke optotypes. The majority (n?=?25) presented optotypes one by one. Four included a calibration procedure. Only one tool was validated against gold standard measures. Many self-test tools have been published, but lack validation. There is a need for regulation of tools for the self-testing of visual acuity to reduce potential risk or confusion to users.
| S-EPMC6706420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly being adopted globally to address various public health issues. DHIs can be categorized according to four main types of technology: mobile based, web based, telehealth, and electronic health records. In 2006, Norman and Skinner introduced the eHealth literacy model, encompassing six domains of skills and abilities (basic, health, information, scientific, media, and computer) needed to effectively understand, process, and act on health-related information. Little is known about whether these domains are assessed or accounted for in DHIs.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore how DHIs assess and evaluate the eHealth literacy model, describe which health conditions are addressed, and which technologies are used.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of the literature on DHIs, based on randomized controlled trial design and reporting the assessment of any domain of the eHealth literacy model. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. A duplicate selection and data extraction process was performed; we charted the results according to the country of origin, health condition, technology used, and eHealth literacy domain.ResultsWe identified 131 unique DHIs conducted in 26 different countries between 2001 and 2020. Most DHIs were conducted in English-speaking countries (n=81, 61.8%), delivered via the web (n=68, 51.9%), and addressed issues related to noncommunicable diseases (n=57, 43.5%) or mental health (n=26, 19.8%). None of the interventions assessed all six domains of the eHealth literacy model. Most studies focused on the domain of health literacy (n=96, 73.2%), followed by digital (n=19, 14.5%), basic and media (n=4, 3%), and information and scientific literacy (n=1, 0.7%). Of the 131 studies, 7 (5.3%) studies covered both health and digital literacy.ConclusionsAlthough many selected DHIs assessed health or digital literacy, no studies comprehensively evaluated all domains of the eHealth literacy model; this evidence might be overlooking important factors that can mediate or moderate the effects of these interventions. Future DHIs should comprehensively assess the eHealth literacy model while developing or evaluating interventions to understand how and why interventions can be effective.
| S-EPMC8212628 | biostudies-literature