{"title":"欧盟电子处方系统的比较:基准开发、使用和未来趋势。","authors":"Jan Bruthans;Georg Duftschmid;Tora Hammar;Przemyslaw Kardas;Lóránt Bertalan;Martin J. Hug;Cille Büllow;Hugo Agius Muscat;Anett Lilleväli;Vesa Jormanainen;Fernando Fernandez-Llimos;Luz Fidalgo;Haralampos Karanikas;Marc Nyssen;Nirvana Popescu;Mária Čudejková;Konstantin Tachkov;Maja Ortner Hadžiabdić;Marios Neofytou;Jurgita Dauksiene;Anneke Huisman;Bríd Ryan;Āris Kasparāns;Matteo Napoleoni;Mirko Perfili;Daisy Smet;Matthieu Calafiore;Dalibor Stanimirovic","doi":"10.1109/JBHI.2025.3531317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While Electronic Prescription Systems (EPS) adoption varies across EU Member States, there's a lack of comprehensive comparative analysis. Existing studies focus on single EPSs, employ diverse methodologies, and lack up-to-date data. This study fills this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of EPS development, functionalities, and usage statistics in each EU Member State. Most EU Member States widely adopted EPS by 2022, with exceptions including Germany, France, and Luxembourg, where pilot projects or just plans existed at that time. Out of the 27 EPSs, 25 employ a similar design featuring a central server and end-user software or web-based applications. Among these, 22 are structured as single national systems. The fundamental technical solution is remarkably similar across the EU. Despite these similarities, functionalities, authentication methods, prescription validity, and medication coverage differ significantly among EPSs. A multinational team, including co-authors from each EU Member State, collected data using a structured questionnaire. The study underscores the need for standardized methodologies in EPS research and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive comparative analysis to inform healthcare policies and digitalization efforts.","PeriodicalId":13073,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics","volume":"29 5","pages":"3712-3722"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Electronic Prescription Systems in the European Union: Benchmarking Development, Use, and Future Trends\",\"authors\":\"Jan Bruthans;Georg Duftschmid;Tora Hammar;Przemyslaw Kardas;Lóránt Bertalan;Martin J. Hug;Cille Büllow;Hugo Agius Muscat;Anett Lilleväli;Vesa Jormanainen;Fernando Fernandez-Llimos;Luz Fidalgo;Haralampos Karanikas;Marc Nyssen;Nirvana Popescu;Mária Čudejková;Konstantin Tachkov;Maja Ortner Hadžiabdić;Marios Neofytou;Jurgita Dauksiene;Anneke Huisman;Bríd Ryan;Āris Kasparāns;Matteo Napoleoni;Mirko Perfili;Daisy Smet;Matthieu Calafiore;Dalibor Stanimirovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/JBHI.2025.3531317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While Electronic Prescription Systems (EPS) adoption varies across EU Member States, there's a lack of comprehensive comparative analysis. Existing studies focus on single EPSs, employ diverse methodologies, and lack up-to-date data. This study fills this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of EPS development, functionalities, and usage statistics in each EU Member State. Most EU Member States widely adopted EPS by 2022, with exceptions including Germany, France, and Luxembourg, where pilot projects or just plans existed at that time. Out of the 27 EPSs, 25 employ a similar design featuring a central server and end-user software or web-based applications. Among these, 22 are structured as single national systems. The fundamental technical solution is remarkably similar across the EU. Despite these similarities, functionalities, authentication methods, prescription validity, and medication coverage differ significantly among EPSs. A multinational team, including co-authors from each EU Member State, collected data using a structured questionnaire. The study underscores the need for standardized methodologies in EPS research and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive comparative analysis to inform healthcare policies and digitalization efforts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics\",\"volume\":\"29 5\",\"pages\":\"3712-3722\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10891153/\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10891153/","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Electronic Prescription Systems in the European Union: Benchmarking Development, Use, and Future Trends
While Electronic Prescription Systems (EPS) adoption varies across EU Member States, there's a lack of comprehensive comparative analysis. Existing studies focus on single EPSs, employ diverse methodologies, and lack up-to-date data. This study fills this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of EPS development, functionalities, and usage statistics in each EU Member State. Most EU Member States widely adopted EPS by 2022, with exceptions including Germany, France, and Luxembourg, where pilot projects or just plans existed at that time. Out of the 27 EPSs, 25 employ a similar design featuring a central server and end-user software or web-based applications. Among these, 22 are structured as single national systems. The fundamental technical solution is remarkably similar across the EU. Despite these similarities, functionalities, authentication methods, prescription validity, and medication coverage differ significantly among EPSs. A multinational team, including co-authors from each EU Member State, collected data using a structured questionnaire. The study underscores the need for standardized methodologies in EPS research and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive comparative analysis to inform healthcare policies and digitalization efforts.
期刊介绍:
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics publishes original papers presenting recent advances where information and communication technologies intersect with health, healthcare, life sciences, and biomedicine. Topics include acquisition, transmission, storage, retrieval, management, and analysis of biomedical and health information. The journal covers applications of information technologies in healthcare, patient monitoring, preventive care, early disease diagnosis, therapy discovery, and personalized treatment protocols. It explores electronic medical and health records, clinical information systems, decision support systems, medical and biological imaging informatics, wearable systems, body area/sensor networks, and more. Integration-related topics like interoperability, evidence-based medicine, and secure patient data are also addressed.