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

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Methods of Information in Medicine Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-11-18 DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1715796
Elske Ammenwerth, Georg Duftschmid, Zaid Al-Hamdan, Hala Bawadi, Ngai T Cheung, Kyung-Hee Cho, Guillermo Goldfarb, Kemal H Gülkesen, Nissim Harel, Michio Kimura, Önder Kırca, Hiroshi Kondoh, Sabine Koch, Hadas Lewy, Dara Mize, Sari Palojoki, Hyeoun-Ae Park, Christopher Pearce, Fernan G B de Quirós, Kaija Saranto, Christoph Seidel, Vivian Vimarlund, Martin C Were, Johanna Westbrook, Chung P Wong, Reinhold Haux, Christoph U Lehmann
{"title":"International Comparison of Six Basic eHealth Indicators Across 14 Countries: An eHealth Benchmarking Study.","authors":"Elske Ammenwerth,&nbsp;Georg Duftschmid,&nbsp;Zaid Al-Hamdan,&nbsp;Hala Bawadi,&nbsp;Ngai T Cheung,&nbsp;Kyung-Hee Cho,&nbsp;Guillermo Goldfarb,&nbsp;Kemal H Gülkesen,&nbsp;Nissim Harel,&nbsp;Michio Kimura,&nbsp;Önder Kırca,&nbsp;Hiroshi Kondoh,&nbsp;Sabine Koch,&nbsp;Hadas Lewy,&nbsp;Dara Mize,&nbsp;Sari Palojoki,&nbsp;Hyeoun-Ae Park,&nbsp;Christopher Pearce,&nbsp;Fernan G B de Quirós,&nbsp;Kaija Saranto,&nbsp;Christoph Seidel,&nbsp;Vivian Vimarlund,&nbsp;Martin C Were,&nbsp;Johanna Westbrook,&nbsp;Chung P Wong,&nbsp;Reinhold Haux,&nbsp;Christoph U Lehmann","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1715796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49822,"journal":{"name":"Methods of Information in Medicine","volume":"59 S 02","pages":"e46-e63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1715796","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods of Information in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715796","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

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.

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
14个国家6项基本电子卫生指标的国际比较:一项电子卫生基准研究。
背景:许多国家采用电子医疗应用程序来支持以患者为中心的护理。通过信息交换,这些电子卫生应用程序可以克服机构数据孤岛,支持整体和无处不在的(区域或国家)信息物流。现有的电子健康指标主要描述一个国家对电子健康的使用和接受程度。关注卫生保健专业人员、患者和护理人员跨机构获得患者相关信息的电子卫生指标很少。目的:本研究旨在为14个国家(阿根廷、澳大利亚、奥地利、芬兰、德国、中国香港特别行政区、以色列、日本、约旦、肯尼亚、韩国、瑞典、土耳其、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡、新加坡等)的医疗保健专业人员以及患者及其护理人员提供相关患者数据跨机构可用性的电子健康指标。(美国)将我们的指标和被调查国家的结果数据与其他电子卫生基准进行比较,并扩展和探索2017年可比调查的变化。我们将“患者数据的可用性”定义为访问各自国家患者记录中的数据并向其添加数据的能力。方法:14个国家的特邀专家分别提供了反映2019年8月1日为参考日期的本国指标数据。总的来说,60个项目汇总为6个电子卫生指标。结果:患者相关信息的可得性因国家而异。只有在四个国家,卫生保健专业人员能够全面访问患者最相关的跨机构健康记录数据。只有两个国家的患者及其护理人员可以完全访问他们的健康记录数据。患者只能在一个国家完全添加相关数据。芬兰在所有电子健康指标中表现最好,其次是韩国、日本和瑞典。结论:电子健康的进步取决于环境因素,如卫生保健组织、国家卫生政策、隐私法和卫生保健融资。因此,电子保健指标的改善往往缓慢。然而,我们的调查显示,在2017年至2019年期间,一些国家至少在某些指标上有所改善。我们预计未来会有进一步的改进。
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
Methods of Information in Medicine
Methods of Information in Medicine 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
33
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Good medicine and good healthcare demand good information. Since the journal''s founding in 1962, Methods of Information in Medicine has stressed the methodology and scientific fundamentals of organizing, representing and analyzing data, information and knowledge in biomedicine and health care. Covering publications in the fields of biomedical and health informatics, medical biometry, and epidemiology, the journal publishes original papers, reviews, reports, opinion papers, editorials, and letters to the editor. From time to time, the journal publishes articles on particular focus themes as part of a journal''s issue.
期刊最新文献
Cross-lingual Natural Language Processing on Limited Annotated Case/Radiology Reports in English and Japanese: Insights from the Real-MedNLP Workshop. Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Contrast Medium Doses for Computed Tomography Angiography Using Optimized Clinical Parameter Sets. Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm to Pseudonymize Documents in the Context of a Clinical Data Warehouse. Deep Learning for Predicting Progression of Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis Based on Lateral Knee Radiographs, Demographic Data, and Symptomatic Assessments. Europe's Largest Research Infrastructure for Curated Medical Data Models with Semantic Annotations.
×
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:481959085
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