International Comparison of Six Basic eHealth Indicators Across 14 Countries: An eHealth Benchmarking Study

Author:

Ammenwerth Elske1,Duftschmid Georg2,Al-Hamdan Zaid3,Bawadi Hala4,Cheung Ngai T.5,Cho Kyung-Hee6,Goldfarb Guillermo7,Gülkesen Kemal H.8,Harel Nissim9,Kimura Michio10,Kırca Önder11,Kondoh Hiroshi12,Koch Sabine13,Lewy Hadas14,Mize Dara15,Palojoki Sari16,Park Hyeoun-Ae17,Pearce Christopher18,de Quirós Fernan G. B.19,Saranto Kaija16,Seidel Christoph20,Vimarlund Vivian21,Were Martin C.22,Westbrook Johanna23,Wong Chung P.24,Haux Reinhold25,Lehmann Christoph U.26

Affiliation:

1. Institute of Medical Informatics, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology (UMIT), Hall in Tirol, Austria

2. Section for Medical Information Management, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

3. Faculty of Nursing/WHO Collaborating Center, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

4. Maternal and Child Health Nursing Department, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

5. Hospital Authority, Hong Kong

6. Seoul National University, Korea

7. Medical Informatics, Hospital de Niños Ricardo Gutiérrez, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

8. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Medical Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

9. Department of Computer Science, Holon Institute of Technology, Holon, Israel

10. Medical Informatics Department, School of Medicine, Hamamatsu University, Shizuoka, Japan

11. Department of Clinical Oncology, Memorial and Medstar Oncology Center, Antalya, Turkey

12. Department of Medical Informatics, Tottori University Hospital, Yonago, Japan

13. Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Health Informatics Centre, KarolinskaInstitutet, Stockholm, Sweden

14. Digital Health Ventures, Holon Institute of Technology, Holon, Israel

15. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States

16. Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

17. College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

18. Director of Research, Outcome Health, Blackburn, Australia

19. Department of Health Informatics, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

20. Division of eHealth, Digitalisation and Social Health Economy, Lower Saxony Ministry for Social Affairs, Health and Equal Opportunities, Hannover, Germany

21. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

22. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States

23. Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Macquarie, Australia

24. Hong Kong Society of Medical Informatics, Hong Kong

25. Peter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Braunschweig, Germany

26. Clinical Informatics Center, Department of Pediatrics, Bioinformatics, and Population and Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, United States

Abstract

Abstract Background Many countries adopt eHealth applications to support patient-centered care. Through information exchange, these eHealth applications may overcome institutional data silos and support holistic and ubiquitous (regional or national) information logistics. Available eHealth indicators mostly describe usage and acceptance of eHealth in a country. The eHealth indicators focusing on the cross-institutional availability of patient-related information for health care professionals, patients, and care givers are rare. Objectives This study aims to present eHealth indicators on cross-institutional availability of relevant patient data for health care professionals, as well as for patients and their caregivers across 14 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States) to compare our indicators and the resulting data for the examined countries with other eHealth benchmarks and to extend and explore changes to a comparable survey in 2017. We defined “availability of patient data” as the ability to access data in and to add data to the patient record in the respective country. Methods The invited experts from each of the 14 countries provided the indicator data for their country to reflect the situation on August 1, 2019, as date of reference. Overall, 60 items were aggregated to six eHealth indicators. Results Availability of patient-related information varies strongly by country. Health care professionals can access patients' most relevant cross-institutional health record data fully in only four countries. Patients and their caregivers can access their health record data fully in only two countries. Patients are able to fully add relevant data only in one country. Finland showed the best outcome of all eHealth indicators, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Conclusion Advancement in eHealth depends on contextual factors such as health care organization, national health politics, privacy laws, and health care financing. Improvements in eHealth indicators are thus often slow. However, our survey shows that some countries were able to improve on at least some indicators between 2017 and 2019. We anticipate further improvements in the future.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Health Information Management,Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Health Informatics

Reference13 articles.

1. Health information technology continues to show positive effect on medical outcomes: systematic review;C S Kruse;J Med Internet Res,2018

2. Outcomes from health information exchange: systematic review and future research needs;W R Hersh;JMIR Med Inform,2015

3. From hospital information systems to health information systems. Problems, challenges, perspectives;K A Kuhn;Methods Inf Med,2001

4. What is e-health?;G Eysenbach;J Med Internet Res,2001

5. Nordic eHealth indicators: organisation of research, first results and plan for the future;H Hyppönen;Stud Health Technol Inform,2013

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3