Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature
Background: eHealth has an enormous potential to improve healthcare cost, effectiveness, and quality of care. However, there seems to be a gap between the foreseen benefits of research and clinical reality.
Objective: Our objective was to systematically review the factors influencing the outcome of eHealth interventions in terms of success and failure.
Methods: We searched the PubMed database for original peer-reviewed studies on implemented eHealth tools that reported on the factors for the success or failure, or both, of the intervention. We conducted the systematic review by following the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework, with 2 of the authors independently reviewing the abstract and full text of the articles. We collected data using standardized forms that reflected the categorization model used in the qualitative analysis of the outcomes reported in the included articles.
Results: Among the 903 identified articles, a total of 221 studies complied with the inclusion criteria. The studies were heterogeneous by country, type of eHealth intervention, method of implementation, and reporting perspectives. The article frequency analysis did not show a significant discrepancy between the number of reports on failure (392/844, 46.5%) and on success (452/844, 53.6%). The qualitative analysis identified 27 categories that represented the factors for success or failure of eHealth interventions. A quantitative analysis of the results revealed the category quality of healthcare (n=55) as the most mentioned as contributing to the success of eHealth interventions, and the category costs (n=42) as the most mentioned as contributing to failure. For the category with the highest unique article frequency, workflow (n=51), we conducted a full-text review. The analysis of the 23 articles that met the inclusion criteria identified 6 barriers related to workflow: workload (n=12), role definition (n=7), undermining of face-to-face communication (n=6), workflow disruption (n=6), alignment with clinical processes (n=2), and staff turnover (n=1).
Conclusions: The reviewed literature suggested that, to increase the likelihood of success of eHealth interventions, future research must ensure a positive impact in the quality of care, with particular attention given to improved diagnosis, clinical management, and patient-centered care. There is a critical need to perform in-depth studies of the workflow(s) that the intervention will support and to perceive the clinical processes involved.
CitationGranja, C., Janssen, W. & Johansen, M.A. (2018). Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/10235
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer in northern Norway: budget impact and expected gain—a model-based analysis Norum, Jan; Antonsen, Margaret Aarag; Tollåli, Geir; Al-Shibli, Khalid; Andersen, Gry; Svanqvist, Kristin-Helene; Helbekkmo, Nina (Journal article; Tidsskriftartikkel; Peer reviewed, 2017-07-29)1 Norum J, et al . ESMO Open 2017; 2 :e000222. doi:10.1136/esmoopen-2017-000222 Open Access Abstr A ct Background P embrolizumab is a new drug approved in several countries for second-line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being programmed cell death ligand (PD-L1) positive. This drug has a high cost, and the cost- effectiveness ratio has been debated. Patients ...
The Use of eHealth and Provider-Based Health Services by Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Study Hansen, Anne Helen; Bradway, Meghan; Brož, Jan; Claudi, Tor; Henriksen, Øystein; Wangberg, Silje C; Årsand, Eirik (Journal article; Tidsskriftartikkel; Peer reviewed, 2016-10-31)<b>Background:</b> The prevalence of diabetes and the use of electronic health (eHealth) resources are increasing. People with diabetes need frequent monitoring and follow-up of health parameters, and eHealth services can be of great significance in this regard. However, little is known about the extent to which different kinds of eHealth tools are used, and how the use of eHealth is associated ...
Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Reviews may be based on trials not approved by a research ethics committee Jokstad, Asbjørn (Journal article; Tidsskriftartikkel; Peer reviewed, 2017-10-27)Systematic reviews (SR) may potentially contain reports of primary trials with ethical problems. The Cochrane Collaboration SRs are considered as the highest standard in evidence-based health care resources. All SRs completed during the last 5 years (2013–2017) under the management of the Oral Health Group of the Cochrane Collaboration were identified. All primary trials included in the Oral Health ...