International Comparison of Six Basic eHealth Indicators Across 14 Countries: An eHealth Benchmarking Study.
Journal
Methods of information in medicine
ISSN: 2511-705X
Titre abrégé: Methods Inf Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0210453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
19
11
2020
medline:
25
9
2021
entrez:
18
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33207386
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1715796
pmc: PMC7728164
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e46-e63Informations de copyright
The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None declared.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 05;20(2):e41
pubmed: 29402759
Methods Inf Med. 2001;40(4):275-87
pubmed: 11552339
JMIR Med Inform. 2015 Dec 15;3(4):e39
pubmed: 26678413
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Nov;131:103952
pubmed: 31557699
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 01;20(5):e10235
pubmed: 29716883
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;222:355-63
pubmed: 27198116
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019 Aug 21;264:1012-1016
pubmed: 31438077
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):371-379
pubmed: 27554825
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:273-7
pubmed: 23920559
J Med Internet Res. 2001 Apr-Jun;3(2):E20
pubmed: 11720962
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 May 29;14:43
pubmed: 24884588
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019 Aug 21;264:954-958
pubmed: 31438065