Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- eHealth (2) (remove)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (2)
Objectives: eHealth and innovation are often regarded as synonyms - not least because eHealth technologies and applications are new to their users. This position paper challenges this view and aims at exploring the nature of eHealth innovation against the background of common definitions of innovation and facts from the biomedical and health informatics literature. A good understanding of what constitutes innovative eHealth developments allows the degree of innovation to be measured and interpreted.
Methods: To this end, relevant biomedical and health informatics literature was searched mainly in Medline and ACM digital library. This paper presents seven facts about implementing and applying new eHealth developments hereby drawing on the experience published in the literature.
Results: The facts are: 1. eHealth innovation is relative. 2. Advanced clinical practice is the yardstick. 3. Only used and usable eHealth technology can give birth to eHealth innovatio. 4. One new single eHealth function does not make a complex eHealth innovation. 5. eHealth innovation is more evolution than revolution. 6. eHealth innovation is often triggered behind the scenes; and 7. There is no eHealth innovation without sociocultural change.
Conclusions: The main conclusion of the seven facts is that eHealth innovations have many ingredients: newness, availability, advanced clinical practice with proven outcomes, use and usability, the supporting environment, other context factors and the stakeholder perspectives. Measuring eHealth innovation is thus a complex matter. To this end we propose the development of a composite score that expresses comprehensively the nature of eHealth innovation and that breaks down its complexity into the three dimensions: i) eHealth adoption, ii) partnership with advanced clinical practice, and iii) use and usability of eHealth. In order to better understand the momentum and mechanisms behind eHealth innovation the fourth dimension, iv) eHealth supporting services and means, needs to be studied. Conceptualising appropriate measurement instruments also requires eHealth innovation to be distinguished from eHealth sophistication, performance and quality, although innovation is intertwined with these concepts. The demanding effort for defining eHealth innovation and measuring it properly seem worthwhile and promise advances in creating better systems. This paper thus intends to stimulate the necessary discussion.
Objectives: This study aimed at the construction of what the core of eHealth policy making is, offering new perspectives about high priority procedures along the policy making process
Methods: Following Grounded Theory methodology, 59 qualitative telephone interviews with a broad variety of stakeholders from Austria, Switzerland and Germany were conducted
Results: The findings hinted at five priorities of eHealth policy making: strategy, consensus-building, decision-making, implementation and evaluation that emerged from the stakeholders’ perception of the eHealth policy. Hereby strategy, consensus-building and implementation gained the highest attention
Conclusions: These findings suggest three high priorities in eHealth policy: 1) developing and pursuing a consistent eHealth strategy, 2) investing time and resources into consensus-building to clear up difficulties early on in the process, 3) governing implementation towards serving patient care through systems fit for practice.
Public Interest Summary: Digitalisation is playing an increasingly crucial role in providing high quality health care. However, different countries have pursued different political paths. In this study, we wanted to know how the stakeholders perceived the political process in their country to identify strengths and weaknesses. We, therefore, conducted interviews about digital health policy with experts from Austria, Switzerland and Germany covering the full spectrum of stakeholders. The findings suggest three political musts: 1) a convincing and coherent strategy followed throughout the entire process, 2) consensus- building among the stakeholders, 3) using “fit for practice” as the yardstick to measure political success.