BackgroundHealthcare organisations are undergoing a major transformational shift in the use of information and digital health technologies. Enterprise architecture (EA) has been incrementally adopted in many healthcare organisations globally to facilitate this change. EA can increase the effectiveness of an organisation’s digital health capabilities and resources. However, little is known about the status of EA adoption in low-income and middle-income countries. This study aimed to evaluate the challenges, goals and benefits associated with adoption of EA for healthcare in the Asia eHealth Information Network (AeHIN) member countries .MethodsWe developed an EA Adoption Evaluation framework with four principal layers: governance, strategy, EA and performance. The framework guided the development of a questionnaire to investigate the goals, challenges and benefits faced before and during EA adoption by healthcare organisations.Sample26 participants from 18 healthcare organisations in the Asia-Pacific region representing 11 countries. Organisations included Ministries of Health, Universities, Non-Governmental Organisations and Technical Advisory Groups.FindingsOnly 5 of the 18 organisations had begun adopting EA. The goals expressed for EA adoption were to address issues such as interoperability, lack of technical infrastructure and poor alignment of business and information technology strategies. Cost reduction was less emphasised. The main challenges to adopting EA was the lack of EA knowledge, leadership and involvement of senior management.ConclusionThe adoption of EA is incipient in AeHIN member healthcare organisations. To encourage EA adoption, these organisations need to invest in internal capacity building, senior management training and seek independent EA expert advice to systematically identify and address the barriers to adopting EA.

Objective Toolkits are an important knowledge translation strategy for implementing digital health. We studied how toolkits for the implementation and evaluation of digital health were developed, tested, and reported. Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic review of toolkits that had been used, field tested or evaluated in practice, and published in the English language from 2009 to July 2019. We searched several electronic literature sources to identify both peer-reviewed and gray literature, and records were screened as per systematic review conventions. Results Thirteen toolkits were eventually identified, all of which were developed in North America, Europe, or Australia. All reported their intended purpose, as well as their development process. Eight of the 13 toolkits involved a literature review, 3 did not, and 2 were unclear. Twelve reported an underlying conceptual framework, theory, or model: 3 cited the normalization process theory and 3 others cited the World Health Organization and International Telecommunication Union eHealth Strategy. Seven toolkits were reportedly evaluated, but details were unavailable. Forty-three toolkits were excluded for lack of field-testing. Discussion Despite a plethora of published toolkits, few were tested, and even fewer were evaluated. Methodological rigor was of concern, as several did not include an underlying conceptual framework, literature review, or evaluation and refinement in real-world settings. Reporting was often inconsistent and unclear, and toolkits rarely reported being evaluated. Conclusion Greater attention needs to be paid to rigor and reporting when developing, evaluating, and reporting toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health so that they can effectively function as a knowledge translation strategy.

Objective Electronic health records are increasingly utilized for observational and clinical research. Identification of cohorts using electronic health records is an important step in this process. Previous studies largely focused on the methods of cohort selection, but there is little evidence on the impact of underlying vocabularies and mappings between vocabularies used for cohort selection. We aim to compare the cohort selection performance using Australian Medicines Terminology to Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) mappings from 2 different sources. These mappings were taken from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP-CDM) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) schedule. Materials and Methods We retrieved patients from the electronic Practice Based Research Network data repository using 3 ATC classification groups (A10, N02A, N06A). The retrieved patients were further verified manually and pooled to form a reference standard which was used to assess the accuracy of mappings using precision, recall, and F measure metrics. Results The OMOP-CDM mappings identified 2.6%, 15.2%, and 24.4% more drugs than the PBS mappings in the A10, N02A and N06A groups respectively. Despite this, the PBS mappings generally performed the same in cohort selection as OMOP-CDM mappings except for the N02A Opioids group, where a significantly greater number of patients were retrieved. Both mappings exhibited variable recall, but perfect precision, with all drugs found to be correctly identified. Conclusion We found that 1 of the 3 ATC groups had a significant difference and this affected cohort selection performance. Our findings highlighted that underlying terminology mappings can greatly impact cohort selection accuracy. Clinical researchers should carefully evaluate vocabulary mapping sources including methodologies used to develop those mappings.