eHealth: where next?

Murray, Elizabeth

doi:10.3399/bjgp14x680365

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is also increased interest in the use of e-health—the use of information and communication technology (the web, computers and smartphones) to improve health and healthcare,14 but the current evidence base is inconclusive. Nevertheless, our participants felt that experiencing some exacerbations of symptoms is inevitable, and in many circumstances it is appropriate for the patient to be dealt with within the ED.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can more appropriate support and services be provided for people who attend the emergency department frequently? National Health Service staff views

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can more appropriate support and services be provided for people who attend the emergency department frequently? National Health Service staff views

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ability of wearable technology to transmit data to the physician is usually presented as attractive for clinical applications [30]. However, physicians have neither the time nor the desire to receive physical activity data, preferring to discuss data with the patient during the more traditional context of a medical consultation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prescribing of Electronic Activity Monitors in Cardiometabolic Diseases: Qualitative Interview-Based Study

Bellicha¹,

Macé²,

Oppert³

2017

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe prevalence of noncommunicable diseases, including those such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, so-called cardiometabolic diseases, is high and is increasing worldwide. Strong evidence supports the role of physical activity in management of these diseases. There is general consensus that mHealth technology, including electronic activity monitors, can potentially increase physical activity in patients, but their use in clinical settings remains limited. Practitioners’ requirements when prescribing electronic activity monitors have been poorly described.ObjectiveThe aims of this qualitative study were (1) to explore how specialist physicians prescribe electronic activity monitors to patients presenting with cardiometabolic conditions, and (2) to better understand their motivation for and barriers to prescribing such monitors.MethodsWe conducted qualitative semistructured interviews in March to May 2016 with 11 senior physicians from a public university hospital in France with expertise in management of cardiometabolic diseases (type 1 and type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia). Interviews lasted 45 to 60 minutes and were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using directed content analysis. We report our findings following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.ResultsMost physicians we interviewed had never prescribed electronic activity monitors, whereas they frequently prescribed blood glucose or blood pressure self-monitoring devices. Reasons for nonprescription included lack of interest in the data collected, lack of evidence for data accuracy, concern about work overload possibly resulting from automatic data transfer, and risk of patients becoming addicted to data. Physicians expected future marketing of easy-to-use monitors that will accurately measure physical activity duration and intensity and provide understandable motivating feedback.ConclusionsFeatures of electronic activity monitors, although popular among the general public, do not meet the needs of physicians. In-depth understanding of physicians’ expectations is a first step toward designing technologies that can be widely used in clinical settings and facilitate physical activity prescription. Physicians should have a role, along with key health care stakeholders—patients, researchers, information technology firms, the public, and private payers—in developing the most effective methods for integrating activity monitors into patient care.

show abstract

“…Achieving the expected benefits in everyday practice is anything but self-evident. [1][2][3] This is not just an implementation issue to be dealt with by maximising facilitators and minimising barriers; rather, it requires changes on many levels and by many involved stakeholders. 3 It is in the interactions between technology, actors and context that desired changes happen.…”

Section: The Role Of Interactions In Health Innovation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The compatibility of reductionistic and complexity approaches in a sociomedical innovation perspective

Naaldenberg¹,

Aarts

2020

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical technologies, e-health and personalised medicine are rapidly changing the healthcare landscape. Successful implementation depends on interactions between the technology, the actors and the context. More traditional reductionistic approaches aim to understand isolated factors and linear cause–effect relations and have difficulties in addressing inter-relatedness and interaction. Complexity theory offers a myriad of approaches that focus specifically on behaviour and mechanisms that emerge from interactions between involved actors and the environment. These approaches work from the assumption that change does not take place in isolation and that interaction and inter-relatedness are central concepts to study. However, developments are proceeding fast and along different lines. This can easily lead to confusion about differences and usefulness in clinical and healthcare research and practice. Next to this, reductionistic and complexity approaches have their own merits and much is to be gained from using both approaches complementary. To this end, we propose three lines in complexity research related to health innovation and discuss ways in which complexity approaches and reductionistic approaches can act compatibly and thereby strengthen research designs for developing, implementing and evaluating health innovations.

show abstract

eHealth: where next?

Cited by 10 publications

References 19 publications

Can more appropriate support and services be provided for people who attend the emergency department frequently? National Health Service staff views

Can more appropriate support and services be provided for people who attend the emergency department frequently? National Health Service staff views

Prescribing of Electronic Activity Monitors in Cardiometabolic Diseases: Qualitative Interview-Based Study

The compatibility of reductionistic and complexity approaches in a sociomedical innovation perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About