Lessons Learned From a Living Lab on the Broad Adoption of eHealth in Primary Health Care.

Electronic health (eHealth) solutions are considered to relieve current and future pressure on the sustainability of primary health care systems. However, evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth in daily practice is missing. Furthermore, eHealth solutions are often not implemented structurally after a pilot phase, even if successful during this phase. Although many studies on barriers and facilitators were published in recent years, eHealth implementation still progresses only slowly. To further unravel the slow implementation process in primary health care and accelerate the implementation of eHealth, a 3-year Living Lab project was set up. In the Living Lab, called eLabEL, patients, health care professionals, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and research institutes collaborated to select and integrate fully mature eHealth technologies for implementation in primary health care. Seven primary health care centers, 10 SMEs, and 4 research institutes participated. This viewpoint paper aims to show the process of adoption of eHealth in primary care from the perspective of different stakeholders in a qualitative way. We provide a real-world view on how such a process occurs, including successes and failures related to the different perspectives. Reflective and process-based notes from all meetings of the project partners, interview data, and data of focus groups were analyzed systematically using four theoretical models to study the adoption of eHealth in primary care. The results showed that large-scale implementation of eHealth depends on the efforts of and interaction and collaboration among 4 groups of stakeholders: patients, health care professionals, SMEs, and those responsible for health care policy (health care insurers and policy makers). These stakeholders are all acting within their own contexts and with their own values and expectations. We experienced that patients reported expected benefits regarding the use of eHealth for self-management purposes, and health care professionals stressed the potential benefits of eHealth and were interested in using eHealth to distinguish themselves from other care organizations. In addition, eHealth entrepreneurs valued the collaboration among SMEs as they were not big enough to enter the health care market on their own and valued the collaboration with research institutes. Furthermore, health care insurers and policy makers shared the ambition and need for the development and implementation of an integrated eHealth infrastructure. For optimal and sustainable use of eHealth, patients should be actively involved, primary health care professionals need to be reinforced in their management, entrepreneurs should work closely with health care professionals and patients, and the government needs to focus on new health care models stimulating innovations. Only when all these parties act together, starting in local communities with a small range of eHealth tools, the potential of eHealth will be enforced.

Swinkels ICS ，Huygens MWJ ，Schoenmakers TM ，Oude Nijeweme-D'Hollosy W ，van Velsen L ，Vermeulen J ，Schoone-Harmsen M ，Jansen YJ ，van Schayck OC ，Friele R ，de Witte L ... -  《JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH》

Perspectives of Policy Makers and Service Users Concerning the Implementation of eHealth in Sweden: Interview Study.

Increasing life spans of populations and a growing demand for more advanced care make effective and cost-efficient provision of health care necessary. eHealth technology is often proposed, although research on barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of eHealth technology is still scarce and fragmented. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions concerning barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of eHealth among policy makers and service users and explore the ways in which their perceptions converge and differ. This study used interview data from policy makers at different levels of health care (n=7) and service users enrolled in eHealth interventions (n=25). The analysis included separate qualitative content analyses for the 2 groups and then a second qualitative content analysis to explore differences and commonalities. Implementation barriers perceived by policy makers were that not all service users benefit from eHealth and that there is uncertainty about the impact of eHealth on the work of health care professionals. Policy makers also perceived political decision-making as complex; this included problems related to provision of technical infrastructure and lack of extra resources for health care digitalization. Facilitators were policy makers' conviction that eHealth is what citizens want, their belief in eHealth solutions as beneficial for health care practice, and their belief in the importance of health care digitalization. Barriers for service users comprised capability limitations and varied preferences of service users and a mismatch of technology with user needs, lack of data protection, and their perception of eHealth as being more time consuming. Facilitators for service users were eHealth technology design and match with their skill set, personal feedback and staff support, a sense of privacy, a credible sender, and flexible use of time.There were several commonalities between the 2 stakeholder groups. Facilitators for both groups were the strong impetus toward technology adoption in society and expectations of time flexibility. Both groups perceived barriers in the difficulties of tailoring eHealth, and both groups expressed uncertainty about the care burden distribution. There were also differences: policy makers perceived that their decision-making was very complex and that resources for implementation were limited. Service users highlighted their need to feel that their digital data were protected and that they needed to trust the eHealth sender. Perceptions about barriers to and facilitators of eHealth implementation varied among stakeholders in different parts of the health care system. The study points to the need to reach an enhanced mutual understanding of priorities and overcome challenges at both the micro and macro levels of the health care system. More well-balanced decisions at the policy-maker level may lead to more effective and sustainable development and future implementation of eHealth.

Neher M ，Nygårdh A ，Broström A ，Lundgren J ，Johansson P ... -  《JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH》

Health Care Professionals' Experiences and Views of eHealth in Pediatric Care: Qualitative Interview Study Applying a Theoretical Framework for Implementation.

The development and evaluation of eHealth interventions in clinical care should be accompanied by a thorough assessment of their implementation. The NASSS (Non-adoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies) framework was designed to facilitate the implementation and scale-up of health technology programs, providing an option for analyzing the progression of these initiatives as they are implemented in real-time. Considering health care provider perspectives within the framework for implementation offers valuable insights into the early identification of barriers and facilitators in the implementation of potentially effective eHealth innovations. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of studies on eHealth interventions that encompass longer time frames and delve into the complexities of scaling up and sustaining such interventions within real-world health care environments. This study aims to investigate the perspectives and insights of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding the implementation of an eHealth intervention in pediatric health care while applying the NASSS framework to theorize and evaluate the conditions influencing the implementation of eHealth solutions. Semistructured interviews were performed with health care providers, including both staff and management personnel, within a university pediatric hospital (N=10). The data collection process occurred concurrently with a clinical trial focused on developing and assessing an eHealth app for self-management in pediatric care following hospital discharge. Using an abductive approach, the interviews were initially analyzed qualitatively and subsequently mapped onto the 7 domains of the NASSS framework to identify factors influencing implementation, encompassing facilitators, barriers, and varying levels of complexity. In the realm of pediatric care, the family was identified as the primary unit of care, and patient heterogeneity was a prominent feature. The implementation of eHealth tools, while deemed usable and flexible, was also seen as a delicate balance between safety and adaptability, highlighting challenges related to health care integration. Child participation and secrecy, especially for adolescents, contributed to the complexity of using eHealth. HCPs had high eHealth literacy, and thus challenges concerning adoption were related to work adaptations and the risk of "app overload." The readiness for implementation was experienced as induced through the research study and the pandemic situation. However, to move from research to implementation in clinical practice, organizational challenges identified a need to update the concept of care and ensure activity measurements. In a wider context, HCPs raised concerns related to regulatory requirements for documentation, public procurement, and data safety. Implementation became more complex due to a lack of overview in a large organization. Important perspectives for implementation were considerations of regulatory requirements, as well as the need for a shared vision of eHealth and the establishment of eHealth-related work as part of regular health care. Key contextual factors that support reach and impact are communication channels between different levels at the hospital and a need for paths and procedures compatible with legal, technological, and security concerns. Further research should focus on how eHealth interventions are perceived by children, adolescents, their parents, and other stakeholders. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04150120; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04150120.

Castor C ，Lindkvist RM ，Hallström IK ，Holmberg R ... -  《-》

The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Cochrane Neonatal was first established in 1993, as one of the original review groups of the Cochrane Collaboration. In fact, the origins of Cochrane Neonatal precede the establishment of the collaboration. In the 1980's, the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at Oxford, led by Dr. Iain Chalmers, established the "Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials" (ODPT), a register of virtually all randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine to provide a resource for reviews of the safety and efficacy of interventions used in perinatal care and to foster cooperative and coordinated research efforts in the perinatal field [1]. An effort that was clearly ahead of its time, ODPT comprised four main elements: a register of published reports of trials; a register of unpublished trials; a register of ongoing and planned trials; and data derived from pooled overviews (meta-analyses) of trials. This core effort grew into the creation of the seminal books, "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" as well as "Effective Care of the Newborn Infant" [2,3]. As these efforts in perinatal medicine grew, Iain Chalmers thought well beyond perinatal medicine into the creation of a worldwide collaboration that became Cochrane [4]. The mission of the Cochrane Collaboration is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence (www.cochrane.org). Cochrane Neonatal has continued to be one of the most productive review groups, publishing between 25 tpo to 40 new or updated systematic reviews each year. The impact factor has been steadily increasing over four years and now rivals most of the elite journals in pediatric medicine. Cochrane Neonatal has been a worldwide effort. Currently, there are 404 reviews involving 1206 authors from 52 countries. What has Cochrane done for babies? Reviews from Cochrane Neonatal have informed guidelines and recommendations worldwide. From January 2018 through June 2020, 77 international guidelines cited 221 Cochrane Neonatal reviews. These recommendations have included recommendations of the use of postnatal steroids, inhaled nitric oxide, feeding guidelines for preterm infants and other core aspects of neonatal practice. In addition, Cochrane Reviews has been the impetus for important research, including the large-scale trial of prophylactic indomethacin therapy, a variety of trials of postnatal steroids, trials of emollient ointment and probiotic trials [6]. While justifiably proud of these accomplishments, one needs to examine the future contribution of Cochrane Neonatal to the neonatal community. The future of Cochrane Neonatal is inexorably linked to the future of neonatal research. Obviously, there is no synthesis of trials data if, as a community, we fail to provide the core substrate for that research. As we look at the current trials' environment, fewer randomized controlled trial related to neonates are being published in recent years. A simple search of PubMed, limiting the search to "neonates" and "randomized controlled trials" shows that in the year 2000, 321 randomized controlled trials were published. These peaked five years ago, in 2015, with close to 900 trials being published. However, in 2018, only 791 studies are identified. Does this decrease represent a meaningful change in the neonatal research environment? Quite possibly. There are shifting missions of clinical neonatology at academic medical institutions, at least in the United States, with a focus on business aspects as well as other important competing clinical activities. Quality improvement has taken over as one of the major activities at both private and academic neonatal practices. Clearly, this is a needed improvement. All units at levels need to be dedicated to improving the outcomes of the sick and fragile population we care for. However, this need not be at the expense of formal clinical trials. It is understandable that this approach would be taken. Newer interventions frequently relate to complex systems of care and not the simple single interventions. Even trials that might traditionally have been done as randomized controlled trials, such as the introduction of a new mode of ventilation, are in reality complex challenges to the ability of institutions to create systems to adapt to these new technologies. Cost of doing trials has always been a barrier. The challenging regulatory and ethical environment contributes to these problems as well [7]. Despite these barriers, how does the research agenda of the neonatal community move forward in the 21st Century? We need to reassess how we create and disseminate our research findings. Innovative trial designs will allow us to address complex issues that we may not have tackled with conventional trials. Adaptive designs may allow us to look at potentially life-saving therapies in a way that feel more efficient and more ethical [8]. Clarifying issues such as the use of inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants would be greatly served if we even knew whether or not there are hypoxemic preterm infant who would benefit from this therapy [9]. Current trials do not suggest so, yet current practice tells us that a significant number of these babies will receive inhaled nitric oxide [10-13]. Adaptive design, such as those done with trials of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), would allow us to quickly assess whether, in fact, these therapies are life-saving and allow us to consider whether or not further trials are needed [14,15]. Our understanding that many interventions involve entire systems approaches does not relegate us only to doing quality improvement work. Cluster designs may allow us to test more complex interventions that have usually been under the purview of quality improvement [16-18]. Cluster trials are well suited for such investigations and can be done with the least interruption to ongoing care. Ultimately, quality improvement is the application of the best evidence available (evidence-based medicine is "what to do" and evidence-based practice is "how to do"). [19,20]. Nascent efforts, such as the statement on "embedding necessary research into culture and health" (the ENRICH statement) call for the conduct of large, efficient pragmatic trials to evaluate neonatal outcomes, as in part called for in the ALPHA Collaboration [21,22]. This statement envisions an international system to identify important research questions by consulting regularly with all stakeholders, including patients, public health professionals, researchers, providers, policy makers, regulators, funders of industry. The ENRICH statement envisions a pathway to enable individuals, educational institutions, hospitals and health-care facilities to confirm their status as research-friendly by integrating an understanding of trials, other research and critical thinking and to teaching learning and culture, as well as an engagement with funders, professional organizations and regulatory bodies and other stake holders to raise awareness of the value of efficient international research to reduce barriers to large international pragmatic trials and other collaborative studies. In the future, if trials are to be done on this scale or trials are prospectively designed to be analyzed together, core outcome measures must be identified and standardized. That clinical trials supply estimates of outcomes that are relevant to patients and their families is critical. In addition, current neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. A given measure can have multiple widely used definitions. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (or chronic lung disease just to add to the confusion) quickly comes to mind [23,24]. The use of multiple definitions when attempting to measure the same outcome prevents synthesis of trial results and meta-analysis and hinders efforts to refine our estimates of effects. Towards that end, Webbe and colleagues have set out to develop a core outcome set for neonatal research [25]. Key stakeholders in the neonatal community reviewed multiple outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies. Based on consensus, key outcome measures were identified, including survival, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, retinopathy or prematurity, gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment or blindness, hearing impairment or deafness, chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Trials registration has to be a continued focus of the neonatal community. Trials registration allows for systematic reviewers to understand whether or not reporting bias has occurred [26]. It also allows for transparent incorporation of these core outcome measures. Ultimately, trials registration should include public reporting of all of these core outcomes and, in the future, access to data on an individual level such that more sophisticated individual patient data meta-analysis could occur. Lastly, there is no reason to see clinical trials and quality improvement as separate or exclusive activities. In fact, in the first NICQ Collaborative, conducted by Vermont Oxford Network, participation in a trial of postnatal steroids was considered part of the quality improvement best practices as opposed to simply choosing an as-of-yet unproven approach to use of this potent drug [27]. What role will Cochrane Neonatal play as we move forward in the 21st Century? As the neonatal community moves forward with its' research agenda, Cochrane Neonatal must not only follow but also lead with innovative approaches to synthesizing research findings. Cochrane Neonatal must continue to work closely with guideline developers. The relationship between systematic review production and guideline development is clearly outlined in reports from the Institute of Medicine [28,29]. Both are essential to guideline development; the systematic review group culling the evidence for the benefits and harms of a given intervention and the guideline group addressing the contextual issues of cost, feasibility, implementation and the values and preferences of individuals and societies. Most national and international guidelines groups now routinely use systematic reviews as the evidence basis for their guidelines and recommendations. Examples of the partnership between Cochrane Neonatal and international guideline development can be seen in our support of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the use of vitamin A or the soon to be published recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) on cord management in preterm and term infants [30]. In the future, we need to collaborate early in the guideline development process so that the reviews are fit for purpose and meet the needs of the guideline developers and the end users. Towards this end, all Cochrane Neonatal reviews now contain GRADE assessments of the key clinical findings reported in the systematic review [31]. Addition of these assessments addresses the critical issue of our confidence in the findings. We are most confident in evidence provided by randomized controlled trials but this assessment can be can be downgraded if the studies that reported on the outcome in question had a high risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency of results, or imprecision, or where there is evidence of reporting bias. Information provided by GRADE assessments is seen as critical in the process of moving from the evidence to formal recommendations [32]. We need to explore complex reviews, such as network (NMA) or multiple treatment comparison (MCT) meta-analyses, to address issues not formally addressed in clinical trials [33]. In conditions where there are multiple effective interventions, it is rare for all possible interventions to have been tested against each other [34]. A solution could be provided by network meta-analysis, which allows for comparing all treatments with each other, even if randomized controlled trials are not available for some treatment comparisons [34]. Network meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions [35]. However, Mills and colleagues note that the methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex [35]. Cochrane Neonatal must take a role in both the creation of such analyses and the education of the neonatal community regarding the pitfalls of such an approach. The availability of individual patient data will make more sophisticated analyses more available to the community. Although the current crop of individual patient data meta-analyses (including the reviews of elective high frequency ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide and oxygen targets) have not differed substantially from the findings of the trials level reviews (suggesting that, in fact, sick neonates are more alike that unalike), there still will be a large role for individual patient data meta-analysis, at least to end the unfound conclusions that these therapies are effective in various subgroups (be it issues of sex, disease severity, or clinical setting) [36-39]. Future trials should take a lesson from the NeOProM Collaborative [37,39]. Given the difficulty in generating significant sample size and creating funding in any single environment, trials with similar protocols should be conducted in a variety of healthcare settings with an eye towards both study level and individual patient level meta-analysis at the conclusion of those trials, allowing for broader contribution to the trials data, more rapid accrual of sample size, and more precise results. We need to educate the neonatal community regarding the use and abuse of diagnostic tests. Diagnostic tests are a critical component of healthcare but also contribute greatly to the cost of medical care worldwide. These costs include the cost of the tests themselves and the costs of misdiagnosis and treatment of individuals who will not benefit from those treatments. Clinicians may have a limited understanding of diagnostic test accuracy, the ability of a diagnostic test to distinguish between patients with and without the disease or target condition [41,42]. Efforts such as Choosing Wisely have tried to identify these deficiencies [40]. As Cochrane has increased the general literacy of both the medical and general population regarding the interpretation of the results of interventions on various diseases, so should Cochrane move forward and improve the understanding of diagnostic testing. We need to become more efficient at creating and maintaining our reviews. The time spent to produce systematic reviews is far too great. In average, it takes between 2½ to 6½ years to produce a systematic review, requiring intense time input for highly trained and expensive experts. Innovations in the ways in which we produce systematic reviews can make the review process more efficient by outsourcing some of the tasks or crowdsourcing to machine learning. We need to let the crowd and machine learning innovations help us sort the massive amounts of information needed to conduct systematic reviews. It can also allow for "live" updating of critical reviews where the research landscape is quickly changing [43]. Lastly, Cochrane Neonatal must focus more on users of the reviews and not necessarily authors of the reviews. Current Cochrane programming speaks of Cochrane training with an eye towards developing the skills of individuals who will conduct systematic reviews. While this is clearly needed and laudable, the fact of the matter is that most of the community will be "users" of the reviews. Individuals who need to understand how to use and interpret the findings of systematic reviews. These review users include clinicians, guideline developers, policy makers and families. Incorporation of GRADE guidelines has been a huge step in adding transparency to the level of uncertainty we have in our findings. From a family's perspective, we need to overcome the environment of mistrust or misunderstanding of scientific evidence and how we convey what we know, and our uncertainty about what we know, to parents and families.

Soll RF ，Ovelman C ，McGuire W 《-》

Unlocking the eHealth professionals' career pathways: A case of Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

During the past two decades, various sectors and industries have undergone digital transformation. Healthcare is poised to make a full transformation in the near future. Although steps have been taken toward creating an infrastructure for digital health in the Middle East, as it stands, digital health is still an emerging field here. The current global health care crisis has underscoredthe need for digitization of the healthcare sector to provide high-value, high-quality care and knowledge generation. With the advent of digital transformation in countries around the globe, there is a rising demand for investment and innovation in health information technology. With the demand for health informatics (HI) graduates in different disciplines (e.g., healthcare professions, information technology, etc.), there is an urgent need to determine and regulate clear career pathways and the core competencies necessary for digital health professional to practice effectively and to allow technology to add value to the healthcare systems. Given the changing landscape of the profession, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are experiencing a rising demand to produce digital health professionals who can meet the needs of all the stakeholders involved, including patients, healthcare professionals, managers, and policymakers. However, despite the number of region-wide initiatives in the form of training programs, there remains a knowledge-practice gap and unclear job roles within the HI community. In recent years, regional digital health workforce initiatives have been put forward, such as the GCC Taskforce on Workforce Development in Digital Healthcare. The taskforce initiated a survey and several workshops to identify and classify HI disciplines according to the needs of the job market and through comparisons with similar efforts developed across the globe, such as the TIGER project and the EU*US eHealth Work project. Digital health implementation has been flourishing in the Middle East for the past 15 years. During this period, while digital health professions have been thriving in the industry to deliver tools and technologies, academic institutions have offered some amount of training and education in digital health; however, the career pathway for digital health professionals is not clear due to mismatch about the qualifications, skills, competencies and experience needed by the healthcare industry. Due to this discrepancy between the academic curriculum and the skills needed in the healthcare industry, the objectives of this study are to define the career pathway for eHealth professions and identify the challenges experienced by academic institutions and the industry in describing digital health professionals. We elicited qualitative data by conducting six focus groups with individuals from different professional backgrounds, including healthcare workers, information managers, computer sciences professionals, and workers in the revenue cycle who participated in a workshop on November 2-3, 2019, in Dubai. All focus group sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed, and participants were de-identified before analysis. An exploratory method was used to identify themes and subthemes. Saturation was reached when similar responses were found during the analysis. In this study, we found that respondents clearly defined eHealth career pathways based on criteria that included qualifications, experience, job scope, and competency. We also explored the challenges that the respondents encountered, including differences in the required skill sets and training and the need to standardize the academic curriculum across the GCC region, to recognize the various career pathways, and to develop local training programs. Additionally, country-specific projects have been initiated, such as the competency-based Digital Health framework, which was developed by the Saudi Commission of Healthcare Specialties (SCFHS) in 2018. Competency-based digital health frameworks generally include relevant job definitions, roles, and recommended competencies. Both the GCC taskforce and the Saudi studies capitalized on previous efforts by professional organizations, including Canada's Digital Health formerly known as (COACH), the U.S. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA), and the Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). In this study, we found that respondents defined eHealth career pathways based on different criteria such as: qualifications; various background of health and IT in the HI field; work experiences; job scope and competency. We also further explore the challenges that the respondents encountered which delineates four key aspects such as need of hybrid skills to manage the digital transformation, need of standardization of academic curriculum across GCC, recognition of the career pathways by the industry in order to open up career opportunity and career advancement, and availability of local training programs for up-skilling the current health workforce. We believe that successful health digital transformation is not limited to technology advancement but requires an adaptive change in: the related competency-based frameworks, the organisation of work and career paths for eHealth professionals, and the development of educational programmes and joint degrees to equip clinicians with understanding of technology, and informaticians with understanding of healthcare. We anticipate that this work will be expanded and adopted by relevant professional and scientific bodies in the GCC region.

Zakaria N ，Zakaria N ，Alnobani O ，AlMalki M ，El-Hassan O ，Alhefzi MI ，Househ M ，Jamal A ... -  《-》