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

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1186/s12913-025-12411-7
Klas Palm, Anders Brantnell, Michael Peolsson, Nurgül Özbek, Gustaf Hedström
{"title":"National eHealth strategies: a comparative study of nine OECD health systems.","authors":"Klas Palm, Anders Brantnell, Michael Peolsson, Nurgül Özbek, Gustaf Hedström","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-12411-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"269"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834240/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12411-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The 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.

Methods: A 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.

Results: Findings 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.

Conclusions: While 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国家电子卫生战略:经合组织9个卫生系统的比较研究。
背景:制定有效的电子卫生战略对提高卫生保健系统的效率和结果至关重要。然而,对各卫生系统的电子卫生战略的比较分析有限,特别是在其愿景、目标、实施方法和后续进程方面。本研究比较了9个卫生系统的电子卫生战略,重点关注三个关键维度:愿景和目标、实现目标的手段和后续结构。方法:利用来自澳大利亚、丹麦、爱沙尼亚、芬兰、挪威、瑞典、英国(NHS英格兰)、加泰罗尼亚(西班牙)和美国(退伍军人事务部)等9个卫生系统的公开电子卫生战略文件进行比较定性分析。分析绘制了这些系统的愿景、目标、实施方法和后续结构。结果:研究结果表明,大多数系统都清晰地表达了愿景和战略目标。但是,关于实现目标的手段和后续行动的结构的详细程度有很大的差异。澳大利亚和爱沙尼亚提出了最全面的战略,有明确的任务、责任、时间表和后续机制。相比之下,瑞典和加泰罗尼亚等国家提供的战略计划不太详细,特别是在后续进程方面。结论:虽然大多数研究的卫生系统包括明确的愿景和战略目标,但其实施和评估框架的细节和全面性存在差异。具有详细实施计划和后续进程的战略,例如澳大利亚和爱沙尼亚的战略,提供了有价值的模式。建议进一步研究以探索这些策略对医疗保健服务、患者结果和系统效率的实际影响。此外,利益相关者参与制定这些战略的作用值得进一步调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of burnout among pediatric surgical resident physicians and the role of mentorship: a cross-sectional study. The patient's voice: real-world experiences of a transthyretin amyloidosis focus group. Factors associated with digital tools use among primary healthcare professionals in Burkina Faso: a cross-sectional study of the minimal digital ecosystem. Machine learning-based prediction of high hospital charges after lung transplantation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. A study of the mediating role of coping styles on social support and caregiving burden among family caregivers of older adults with disabilities in China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1