No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.

Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature

Conceição Granja, Wouter Janssen, Monika Alise Johansen

Journal of Medical Internet Research · 2018 · Systematic review

Abstract

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.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 17, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

1In the last decades, it has been a challenge for policy makers to ensure access to healthcare to populations living in rural and remote areas. Additionally, global demographic trends, such as the increasing number of elderly people, have been changing healthcare delivery due to a growing demand for long-term care and increasing costs. Against this background, eHealth has been presented as a solution. In the context of this study, we define eHealth as the use of information and communication technology in healthcare.

2A vast amount of eHealth interventions have been reported to fail during clinical implementation. Tanriverdi and Iacono demonstrated that a considerable amount of research with promising results did not contribute to clinical practice. Berg stated more specifically that 75% of implemented eHealth should be considered a failure.

3According to Bashshur et al, the assessment of eHealth interventions rests on three pillars of care: (1) access, (2) quality, and (3) cost containment. They describe these three pillars as the promises that eHealth interventions are required to fulfill to attain a successful outcome and, indeed, that each of these promises must be met. Considering the aforementioned reports on the failure of eHealth interventions, it appears reasonable to assume that the promises represented by these three pillars are not often accomplished.

4To improve the success of eHealth, it is important to identify the factors that can influence, positively or negatively, the outcome of the intervention. Such factors can vary from project-specific to recurring issues, with the three pillars proposed by Bashshur et al expected to have an important role in the success or failure of eHealth interventions. However, as the field of medical informatics is positioned between the fast-changing field of informatics and the rather conservative field of healthcare, organizational and operational aspects can be expected to play an important part in the outcome of eHealth interventions.

5The overall aim of this study was to seek, through a systematic review, patterns in the assessment of eHealth intervention outcomes, and through these patterns to identify factors that can help explain why eHealth interventions fail or succeed in clinical practice. Therefore, we systematically searched for original studies that provide data to address the following key questions:

Methods

6This systematic review was guided by the Cochrane Handbook, and the reporting is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We established the review methods before conducting the review, and the reports did not justify any deviations from the protocol.

Search Strategy

7We searched the PubMed database in October 2016 for original articles published in English up to this date. The main reason for using only the PubMed search engine was the availability of a vast amount of articles in eHealth research from both a medical and a sociological standpoint. In this way, we expected that we would find most of the relevant clinical outcomes for this study. Since the review focused on implemented eHealth tools, we did not consider the inclusion of articles from a technology perspective to be necessary. As this strategy proved to be useful, we searched no other academic databases.

8We performed an initial search using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) telemedicine AND challenges, based on prior knowledge obtained from articles that referenced eHealth success or failure, which identified 658 articles. We evaluated the title and abstract of these articles and identified possible search terms. We determined the term “lessons” to be important and used it together with the previous search, identifying 63,299 articles. We analyzed the resulting articles to further specify the search terms and define the search string following the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework.

9We based the search string on three classes of the PICO framework, since the class comparison did not apply to this study. We defined these classes as (P): healthcare; (I): eHealth; and (O): change, failure, or success. We combined all terms in each class with the logical operator OR and linked the classes using the logical operator AND. Over the course of refining the search results, we tried 2 search strings. In the first, we used the search terms extracted from the previous search to create a PICO scheme, constrained to the last 10 years, which identified 11,950 articles. In the second, we removed the time constraint and refined the search terms to focus on eHealth interventions that were used in actual clinical practice. This last search string (Textbox 1) was the one we used to retrieve the articles used in the review process.

10Healthcare (P)

11((clinical practice[Title/Abstract] OR real use[Title/Abstract] OR real practice[Title/Abstract] OR clinical implication OR health care effect[Title/Abstract] OR health care impact[Title/Abstract] OR practical trials[Title/Abstract] OR clinical trials[Title/Abstract] OR practical clinical implementation[Title/Abstract] OR practical clinical trials[Title/Abstract] OR implemented service[Title/Abstract] OR adoption[Title/Abstract] OR adoption rate[Title/Abstract]))

12eHealth (I)

13((((“telemedicine”[MeSH] OR medical informatics[TIAB] OR eHealth[Title/Abstract] OR ehealth[Title/Abstract] OR telemedicine[Title/Abstract] OR telehealth[Title/Abstract] OR mhealth[Title/Abstract] OR mhealth[Title/Abstract] OR health telematics[Title/Abstract] OR tele-health[Title/Abstract] OR etherapy[Title/Abstract] OR wireless health[Title/Abstract] OR healthcare technology[Title/Abstract] OR telecare[Title/Abstract] OR medical information system[Title/Abstract] OR telemonitoring[Title/Abstract] OR telepresence[Title/Abstract] OR electronic health information[Title/Abstract] OR teleconsultation[Title/Abstract] OR teleintervention[Title/Abstract] OR e-rehabilitation[Title/Abstract])))

14Change, failure, or success (O)

15((fail*[Title/Abstract] OR succes*[Title/Abstract] OR barrier*[Title/Abstract] OR interoperability[Title/Abstract] OR usability[TIAB] OR lessons learned[Title/Abstract] OR implications[Title/Abstract] OR experiences[Title/Abstract] OR implementation[Title/Abstract])))

16Funding from government or tax money equals influence on society.

17Policies have an effect on both organizations and availability of tools for patients.

18Coordination and interoperability problems have consequences for patients, professionals, and systems.

19Extra (or changes in) work is seen as workflow.

20Safety is a relative term, interpreted as compared with traditional ways.

21Workforce problems are interpreted as change of workflow.

22(Un)familiarity with tools is seen as information technology training.

23Paternalism and empowerment is seen as empowerment or engagement.

24Medical (studies) students are seen as health professionals.

25Time is seen as either workflow or costs, depending on the context.

26We included no articles based on hand searches of reference lists for the reasons outlined under Section 10.2.2.3 of the Cochrane Handbook: “positive studies are more likely to be cited” and “retrieving literature by scanning reference lists may thus produce a biased sample of studies.”

Study Selection

27We analyzed the titles and abstracts of the articles that resulted from the final search string for inclusion according to the following predefined exclusion criteria: not an original work; unclear or no results; not research; not in English. We defined the exclusion criteria based on the key questions to include original studies in healthcare-related fields, with a focus on success and failure, that reported on a form of eHealth or medical informatics, but which did not have to be the main goal or result but should have been a key component. Textbox 2 lists the reading interpretation guidelines for the abstract review.

Data Collection and Synthesis

28A qualitative analysis was carried out by 2 of the authors (CG and WJ) to classify the outcomes reported in the articles’ abstract according to the following 3 levels.

Success and Failure

30This level indicated whether the identified category was described as a success or failure factor reported in the intervention outcome narrative. As success and failure are important concepts of this study, we explain our considerations on the terms here.

31We classified the factors in the categories as success if they were considered to facilitate the achievement of the study goals. The same category may have been described as success and failure in the same study by different participants. If specific features of an intervention were mentioned to be a success, we attributed these to success, even when the overall project was classified as failure.

32The category is mentioned only in the text.

33No extensive analysis of the category or reporting on the effects on eHealth outcomes is present.

34The category is only identified as relevant to the success or failure of eHealth, and no further considerations are taken.

35The article is not in English.

36We classified the factors in the categories as failure if they were considered to be barriers to achieving the study goals. Different participants may have described the same category as success and failure in the same study. If specific features of an intervention were mentioned to be a failure factor, we attributed these to failure, even when the overall project was classified as success.

Entity

37This level referred to the role of the study participant who reported the identified factor in the categories. The entities could assume the following values.

38In this review, patients were people who received care. Therefore, we also included clients (ie, people with less-urgent problems) and customers (ie, people who were interested in monitoring their own health). This entity also included people who gave care to patients in a nonprofessional context (ie, parents, family, and friends).

39Healthcare professionals comprised all people who provided care services in a professional context. This included physicians, nurses, therapists, mental health workers, and other professional groups trained in providing care. It did not necessarily have to be direct care, but they had to have been providing care to patients.

40The health system included management and supporting staff, infrastructure, the technological health systems (both software and hardware), and ideological systems such as national health plans and systems.

41The society value included participants who were described as potential users and were not identified as belonging to the entities described above.

42All involved all the above entities, and we classified the category identified in the reports as success and failure.

Full-Text Analysis

43In addition to categorizing abstracts for success and failure factors of eHealth interventions, we analyzed the full text for the category with the highest frequency of unique articles according to the categorization results. Such analysis was aimed at gathering the data that provide knowledge related to key question 2.

44Articles in which the category with the highest unique article frequency was reported to contribute to the success or failure of the eHealth intervention were eligible for a full-text review. However, in the course of the full-text assessment, we refined the selection according to the exclusion criteria presented in Textbox 3.

45In summary, abstract and full-text reviews were conducted independently by 2 authors (CG and WJ), who extracted data based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria into a structured a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The 2 authors analyzed all abstracts a second time to confirm the categorization, identified all relevant factors reported to contribute to the success or failure of eHealth interventions, and noted them in the categorization model. In this manner, every time a new factor was identified, a new category was created. The full-text review was conducted with special attention to the descriptions of how the category with the highest unique article frequency was affecting the success of the eHealth intervention. All disagreements were resolved by consensus discussions.

Results

46The search string identified 903 articles, 7 of which we excluded, as they were duplicates or incomplete. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 896 articles were read by 2 of the authors (CG and WJ) for compliance with the exclusion criteria described in the Methods section, and 221 were included in the study.

47Figure 1 presents the literature search and selection process based on the PRISMA guidelines.

Key Question 1 (Barriers and Facilitators)

48We defined the categories included in the categorization model based on the information we found in the abstracts. We identified 27 categories, which are summarized and defined in Table 1.

49We classified the abstracts of the 221 articles according to the 3 levels described in the Methods section. Multimedia Appendix 1 presents the outcomes.

50Furthermore, we analyzed the article frequency, as Multimedia Appendix 2 shows.

51The narratives on the category (quality of healthcare) most mentioned as contributing to the success of eHealth interventions reported on improved diagnosis, better communication with the patient, and supported patient-centered care. Factors less clinically related were also mentioned, such as the diminishment of the care provision gap for patients, and the improvement of patients’ clinical management.

52On the other hand, a few articles in the category (costs) most mentioned as contributing to the failure of eHealth interventions established a relationship between the costs and quality of care. As an example, Chan et al pointed out as the main benefit of the eHealth intervention focus of the study that patients in a rural area could be examined by physicians from central hospitals without needing a physical consultation, while at the same time resulting in financial savings. However, the main focus of the articles in this category was on eHealth adoption. Villalba et al identified national investments and funding programs as facilitators in the adoption of 11 eHealth interventions in 8 European countries. O’Toole et al, Devriendt et al, and Foldy also identified the shortage of financial resources as a common barrier to the adoption and implementation of eHealth. In a similar manner, Ford et al stressed the importance of finding financial mechanisms to support the organizational changes required to adopt eHealth. While acknowledging that a national policy for investment in eHealth interventions is crucial to its adoption, Rozenblum et al argued that financial incentives should be based on patient outcomes that might ensue from the eHealth intervention. DeWorsop et al and Lee and Billings reported on the importance of cost effectiveness to promoting the adoption of eHealth interventions.

53To better understand what were, for each entity, the most relevant categories reported to contribute to the success and failure of eHealth interventions, Table 2 summarizes the results from the article frequency analysis. We excluded the society entity from this analysis, as we did not consider the number of articles to be representative.

Key Question 2 (Success/Failure Factors)

54The article frequency analysis, presented in Multimedia Appendix 2, revealed that the most representative category was workflow, with 51 unique articles. We assessed all the unique articles according to the exclusion criteria presented in Textbox 2, which resulted in 23 articles remaining for full-text review (Figure 1).

55The full-text analysis of the 23 articles, with special attention to the descriptions of how the workflow category affected the success of the eHealth intervention, identified the following 6 barriers.

56Workload increased the amount of work and tasks (or time required to perform them) needed to complete a clinical process, when compared with the workflow established before the eHealth intervention.

57Workflow disruption resulted in the inability to complete the work process in a linear and smooth manner.

58Alignment with clinical processes was a barrier when the eHealth tool did not integrate with or support the existing clinical process.

59Undefined and changed roles resulted when the responsibility for a workflow task was not the same after the eHealth intervention, or new tasks were included in the workflow and no responsibilities were assigned.

60Undermined face-to-face communication refers to the impact on personal contact with the patient and other healthcare professionals.

61Staff turnover refers to the rotation of healthcare professionals between departments, or short-term contracts, that require new learning or training on the eHealth tool.

62Workload can be classified as the biggest workflow-related concern, since it was overrepresented in the results, being addressed in 12 of the 23 studies. In these studies, healthcare personnel stressed the increase in the amount of work after the implementation of the eHealth tool. eHealth was described as being both time and resource intensive and indicated discontent about the amount of self-reported and self-recorded health data provided by the tool for assessment.

63The second most mentioned barrier, addressed in 7 studies, was the undefined roles and change of work practice of the parties involved in the workflow. Narratives reported, for instance, that the new role was tangential to their role as healthcare professionals—for example, coaching patients in the use of the technology, analyzing the self-reported data and subsequently answering the patient’s questions, the need for new competences, and unresolved attribution of responsibilities.

64Workflow disruption was significantly present in the studies, reflected in narratives describing eHealth as not being fitted to the existing workflow due to time (eg, data provided to the system a priori, and work tasks having to be performed by others) or space constraints, and breaking of traditions.

65According to Kapadia et al, healthcare personnel report a preference for face-to-face communication over digital long-distance systems. Nielsen and Mathiassen mentioned the loss of contact between personnel as a trigger to the reduction of knowledge sharing and collegial relationships. Less mentioned, but still significant, were statements that eHealth is impersonal and, therefore, undermines face-to-face communication, substantiated by the claim that the foundation of good nursing is physical presence, human touch, and the use of all senses.

66Less addressed in the studies, but still significant barriers, were the alignment of the eHealth intervention with the clinical workflow and staff turnover. These are related to how supportive and well integrated the tool is in the workflow and the need for constant training of staff, respectively.

67In the literature, two general workflows were mentioned. The first was the preestablished workflow, defined as the workflow in an organization, or at a specific organizational level (eg, the cardiology ward in a hospital), before the eHealth intervention. The second was the new workflow, which describes the workflow after the eHealth intervention. Different authors have various ideas about this change.

68Some argued that eHealth interventions should be adapted into the preestablished workflow in order to succeed. Others [19,72,73 93,97] advocated that the workflow will change, or is necessary to change, in order for the intervention to be successful.

69eHealth interventions in healthcare organizations triggered changes in the workflow. Such changes were not limited to the directly involved staff, but also had an impact on others within the organization. Therefore, changes in the workflow had the potential to alter the organization both in a negative and in a positive way. Additionally, a change that was initially a positive development could lead to a rather negative outcome. Such circumstances are reported by Das et al, Davis et al, and Chung et al, where the overabundance of data led to an inability to use the data due to time constraints.

70Professional values and personal feelings should also be considered to be barriers to eHealth interventions, as they may come into conflict with the use of technology. In these works, feelings of healthcare staff about the technology resulted in negative thoughts and skepticism, resulting in the technology never fully being integrated into the workflow.

General Findings

71There is a reasonable amount of original research exploring the effects of eHealth interventions. However, among the 903 articles we identified, only 221 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The studies were heterogeneous by country, type of eHealth intervention, method of implementation, and reporting perspectives (ie, patient, healthcare professionals, health system, and society). The article frequency analysis presented in Multimedia Appendix 2 did not find a significant discrepancy between the number of reports on failure (392/844, 46.5%) and success (452/844, 53.6%), which encourages definitive conclusions on the key questions that prompted the review.

72While evaluating the 903 articles, we realized that the studies could be grouped into three chronological eras, according to their research focus: (1) up to 1999: in this first era, most of the articles addressed the technology with a focus on aspects such as functionality and infrastructure; (2) 2000-2009: in the second era, the focus shifted from the technology to the organization; in this setting, an organization could be a healthcare organization or a community (local, regional, national, or international); (3) 2010 to the present: the third era focused on individuals, where researchers investigated how people work, often from a bottom-up perspective, compared with a top-down scope on the complete organization.

73The first two eras defined in this chronological pattern are supported by Nielsen and Mathiassen.

74When we applied the three chronological eras to the 221 articles selected for abstract classification, it became clear that the search strategy achieved the desired results in identifying studies with relevant clinical outcomes. This is demonstrated by the fact that most of the articles (168 articles) fell into the third era, and only 3 articles were included in the first era, which had a technological focus.

Key Question 1 (Barriers and Facilitators)

75The category most mentioned as contributing to the success of eHealth interventions was quality of healthcare. This category was also one of the three pillars of care described by Bashshur et al as being the support of successful eHealth interventions. The authors related quality of care to professional performance standards, related the role and contribution of the intervention to clinical practice, and described how this contribution is achieved. This is in line with the narratives found in the articles assigned to this category.

76Most of the unique articles in the category quality of healthcare belonged in the third era, with only 9 being in the second era, and none in the first. Belonging in the third era, the focus was on the individual, which could explain the increase in focus on quality of care.

77The articles in the quality of healthcare category were evenly distributed among the entities, showing a significant difference between the article frequency as success (n=55) and failure (n=12), and revealing a positive view among the users, thus positioning this category as an evident facilitator of eHealth interventions.

78On the other hand, costs is the category most mentioned as contributing to the failure of eHealth interventions. Similar to quality of healthcare, this category is also one of the three pillars of the promises of eHealth proposed by Bashshur et al. In their work, the cost containments pillar focused on cost reductions for patients and providers in a broad sense, supporting a clear definition of how the eHealth intervention would facilitate the provision of care services at a lower cost without loss of quality of care. However, the main focus of the articles in the costs category was on eHealth adoption, and only a few articles established a relation between the costs and quality of care in the manner of Bashshur et al.

79The classification of unique articles in the costs category according to the aforementioned eras revealed that most, 80% (40 articles), fell in the third era. In line with the focus on the individual that characterized this era, we noted that only 13 of the 50 unique articles included results after the eHealth intervention, and that as many as 37 report on expectations, potentials, and other future possibilities. Most of these articles arose from the social sciences and addressed the actors’ expectations of eHealth, revealing the general idea that eHealth interventions bring cost reductions along with the implementation. An important aspect of expectations is that they are based on the actors’ opinions or wishes, often before the results are clear. However, the actual costs and financial benefits can be measured only after implementation. Since most research was done during the implementation, often at an early stage, this means that data were being collected at a stage when funding was still available and the full impact of the eHealth intervention on the organization was not yet evident. This being said, the costs category certainly presents as a barrier to eHealth interventions.

80Looking at the category’s article frequency distribution among the entities, costs was mostly mentioned by the health system entity, being, in fact, considered as the most important to both the success and the failure of eHealth interventions. Such lack of a relevant difference between the contribution of costs to success (18 articles) and failure (19 articles) leads to the conclusion that this category is a major concern for the health system. Thus, and since this entity includes organizations and governmental bodies, we conclude that certain financial conditions are required to distribute eHealth services. Hence, we inferred that, to adopt eHealth in their services, it is not important for the health system to attain financial profit, but rather to not have a loss. It is not surprising to see that, along with costs, the category most cited as contributing to that success of eHealth interventions for the health system entity was policies, as the importance of national policy investments and reimbursement rules was so often mentioned in the articles.

81However, such perspective on what is most relevant for the success and failure of eHealth interventions is not shared by the other entities. Considering the narratives related to quality of healthcare, described in the Results section, it is not surprising that this category appeared as the most important for the success of eHealth interventions for healthcare professionals. Following the same line of thought, workflow appeared as the most relevant for the failure of eHealth. We discuss the ways in which each of these issues affected the outcome of eHealth interventions below under Key Question 2. However, we can already assert that what these issues have in common is the deprivation of time to provide care services. Conversely, patients considered of most importance that the eHealth interventions support them in managing their own health independently. This is demonstrated in that the most cited category by the patient entity as contributing to the success of eHealth interventions was patient empowerment and self-management. It seems almost too obvious to state that, as patients want to be provided with the means to manage their own health, their most mentioned category as leading to the failure of eHealth was privacy and security. This reveals that, even though patients want to be independent and manage their own health remotely, they are aware of the sensitivity of the data that are being shared.

Key Question 2 (Success/Failure Factors)

82Kruse et al examined barriers in eHealth research on a quantitative basis for several consecutive years. In their work, they stated that workflow was one of the most mentioned barriers in literature, which is confirmed by the article frequency analysis presented in Multimedia Appendix 2, where workflow is the category with the most unique articles. This positions this category as being of major concern for the entities.

83The claim that eHealth interventions should be fitted to the preestablished workflow in order to succeed was also upheld by Gardner and in the systematic review by Kawamoto et al. In opposition, others supported that changes in the workflow are inevitable and necessary for the eHealth intervention to be successful, stressing that the adoption of new eHealth tools within the preestablished workflow creates problems during the implementation process. This is corroborated by the findings in the systematic review by Davis et al and by Bowens et al, who also point out that the need to reengineer the workflow to integrate eHealth can be a trigger to improve efficiency, distribution of tasks, patient safety, and the quality of the data collected from the patient. Such disparity of opinions leads to 2 questions. (1) What is the importance of eHealth to workflow? (2) How are the design and the outcomes of eHealth related?

What is the Importance of eHealth to Workflow?

84Healthcare organizations’ resistance to change has identified barriers to eHealth interventions. Most organizations were not created to accommodate eHealth and, as noted by Appelbaum and Wohl, the inability of healthcare organizations to adapt to changes is a barrier to their own sustainability. The resistance to change is also present at the staff level. Pardo del Val and Martinez Fuentes proposed a framework for the sources to resistance to change, among which are the “relation between change values and organizational values,” denoting the difference between what is important for the individual and for the organization, and “cynicism,” denoting the negative feelings toward the success of the change. This is in line with the narratives on how professional values and personal feelings hinder the use of eHealth, found in the articles selected for review.

85To maximize the likelihood of a successful eHealth intervention, healthcare professionals must acquaint themselves with the tool. Furthermore, there should not be a possibility to fall back on the old workflow.

How Are the Design and the Outcomes of eHealth Related?

86If eHealth does not meet the expectations or requirements of healthcare personnel, it is possible that the eHealth tool will not be used as anticipated. This is caused by a difference between the prospects, which are often made by management personnel, and the reality of healthcare personnel. In the literature, the technical perspective during the design phase is identified as a significant contributor to the gap between prospect and reality. Declerck and Aime used the term technocentrism to classify the importance of technology in the design phase, where other actors, such as healthcare professionals, appear as secondary concerns. In addition, it should be taken into consideration that different professions within healthcare have different needs from eHealth, and these needs have to be addressed to make eHealth applications operate successfully in healthcare organizations.

87In a veiled manner of recognizing that the technical focus during the design phase was a barrier to eHealth adoption, the technology design mentality shifted to one with a holistic and human focus. There is a widespread perception in human-computer interaction that recognizes that users should be involved in the design in order to create technology that is more relevant, resulting in the wide acceptance of user-centered design and participatory design approaches. Thus, it is legitimate to conclude that the design and the outcomes of eHealth are clearly related, and that user involvement during the design phase is of the most importance for the success eHealth interventions within the domain of workflow.

Conclusions to Key Question 1

88With this systematic review, we identified quality of healthcare as the major facilitator of eHealth interventions and costs as the major barrier.

89Within the quality of healthcare category, a positive impact in clinical care appears to be relevant to the adoption of eHealth. The impact is assessed with varied metrics, such as improved diagnosis, clinical management, and patient-centered care. The role of the costs category in the adoption of eHealth seems to be more consensual. Most of the studies included in this category identify the shortage of financial resources as a common barrier to the adoption and implementation of eHealth.

90The importance of quality of healthcare in the success of eHealth interventions is shared only by the healthcare professionals entity. The concern of healthcare professionals with care services is also reflected by the workflow category being the most mentioned contributor to the failure of eHealth interventions.

91The patient entity revealed their wish of controlling their own health by placing the patient empowerment and self-management character of the intervention as the major contributor to success. However, this wish for control does not come without apprehension, as demonstrated by mentioning the privacy and security category as the major contributor to the failure of eHealth.

92The health system entity attributed to 1 category, costs, the same relevance to both success and failure of eHealth interventions. This does not appear as a surprise, as this category mostly relates to financial resources. As these financial resources often originate from governmental sources, it is reasonable that the health system entity mentioned the policies category, along with costs, as a major contributor to the success of eHealth interventions.

Conclusions to Key Question 2

93According to the reviewed literature, workflow was the most relevant factor to the outcome of eHealth interventions across all entities. A full-text review identified 6 barriers to the adoption of eHealth related to this category. Most of these barriers were reported by the healthcare professionals entity, and are as follows: (1) workload, (2) workflow disruption, (3) alignment with clinical processes, (4) undefined and changed roles, (5) undermined face-to-face communication, and (6) staff turnover.

Limitations

94Some limitations in this review must be acknowledged. Despite having searched the PubMed database using standard systematic review protocols, we could have searched further databases. This might have limited the results, as the search process may not have captured relevant studies that were not indexed in the PubMed database. However, we considered that the PubMed search alone yielded a representative overview of the field.

95Additionally, many studies were based on data that were gathered either before or during the implementation process when the eHealth intervention was not well established in the workplace. As the reports were collected at such an early stage, they might be overshadowed by emotional resistance and fear of change.

Future Research

96In spite of the limitations, this systematic review remains a useful source of information, as it synthesized common challenges in the development of eHealth interventions and in the planning of their implementation. In this regard, considerations for future research include the following:

97Identify potential facilitators and barriers at the earliest possible stage to ensure that full account is taken when defining the development and implementation strategy;

98Determine the impact of eHealth interventions on the quality of care, with particular attention given to improved diagnosis, clinical management, and patient-centered care;

99Evaluate the financial needs and consequences in the short, medium, and long term, to avoid nonadoption due to lack of funding;

100Perform in-depth studies of the workflow(s) that the intervention will support and perceive the clinical processes involved;

101Improve the privacy and security features of eHealth interventions targeted at patients.

References 252

1.
World Health Organization. User's guide: the WHO global code of practice on the international recruitment of health personnel. 2011.
Not in our library
2.
Parker MG, Thorslund M. Health trends in the elderly population: getting better and getting worse. Gerontologist. 2007;47(2):150-8.
Not in our library10.1093/geront/47.2.150
3.
Prevalence of Multiple Chronic Conditions Among US Adults: Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 2010 · 2013
No notice
4.
Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet. 2009;374(9696):1196-208.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61460-4
5.
Ågren G, Berensson K. Healthy Ageing -- A Challenge for Europe. 2006.
Not in our library
6.
Goldberg HS, Morales A, Gottlieb L, Meador L, Safran C. Reinventing patient-centered computing for the twenty-first century. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 2):1455-8.
Not in our library
7.
Hjelm NM. Benefits and drawbacks of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(2):60-70.
Not in our library10.1258/1357633053499886
8.
Tanriverdi H, Iacono C. Knowledge barriers to diffusion of telemedicine. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information systems. 1998;13-16.
Not in our library10.1145/353053.353057
9.
Jung M, Berthon P. Fulfilling the promise: a model for delivering successful online health care. J Med Marketing. 2009;9(3):243-254.
Not in our library10.1057/jmm.2009.26
10.
Shortliffe EH. Strategic action in health information technology: why the obvious has taken so long. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(5):1222-33.
Not in our library10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1222
11.
Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Inform. 1999;55(2):87-101.
Not in our library10.1016/s1386-5056(99)00011-8
12.
Bashshur RL, Shannon G, Krupinski EA, Grigsby J. Sustaining and realizing the promise of telemedicine. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(5):339-45.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2012.0282
13.
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011.
Not in our library
14.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
Not in our library10.1136/bmj.b2535
15.
Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions · 2007
No notice
16.
Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-88.
Not in our library10.1177/1049732305276687
17.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105-12.
Not in our library10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
18.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. Systems software engineering -- architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011(E) (Revision of ISO/IEC 42010:2007 and IEEE Std 1471-2000). 2011.
Not in our library
19.
The Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Tool: Testing Usability and Feasibility of a Mobile App and Portal to Support Care for Patients With Complex Chronic Disease and Disability in Primary Care Settings · 2016
Not checked
20.
Duman-Lubberding S, van Uden-Kraan CF, Jansen F, Witte BI, van der Velden LA, Lacko M, Cuijpers P, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. Feasibility of an eHealth application “OncoKompas” to improve personalized survivorship cancer care. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(5):2163-71.
Not in our library10.1007/s00520-015-3004-2
21.
Hoque MR. An empirical study of mHealth adoption in a developing country: the moderating effect of gender concern. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:51.
Not in our library10.1186/s12911-016-0289-0
22.
Hunting G, Shahid N, Sahakyan Y, Fan I, Moneypenny CR, Stanimirovic A, North T, Petrosyan Y, Krahn MD, Rac VE. A multi-level qualitative analysis of Telehomecare in Ontario: challenges and opportunities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:544.
Not in our library10.1186/s12913-015-1196-2
23.
Jiménez-Fernández S, de Toledo P, del Pozo F. Usability and interoperability in wireless sensor networks for patient telemonitoring in chronic disease management. IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60(12):3331-9.
Not in our library10.1109/tbme.2013.2280967
24.
Manafò E, Wong S. Promoting eHealth literacy in older adults: key informant perspectives. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2013;74(1):37-41.
Not in our library10.3148/74.1.2013.37
25.
Marzegalli M, Lunati M, Landolina M, Perego GB, Ricci RP, Guenzati G, Schirru M, Belvito C, Brambilla R, Masella C, Di Stasi F, Valsecchi S, Santini M. Remote monitoring of CRT-ICD: the multicenter Italian CareLink evaluation--ease of use, acceptance, and organizational implications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008;31(10):1259-64.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01175.x
26.
Nikander K, Denyer J, Dodd M, Dyche T, Webb K, Weller P, Stableforth D. The Adaptive Aerosol Delivery system in a telehealth setting: patient acceptance, performance and feasibility. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2010;23 Suppl 1:S21-7.
Not in our library10.1089/jamp.2009.0770
27.
Nitsch M, Dimopoulos CN, Flaschberger E, Saffran K, Kruger JF, Garlock L, Wilfley DE, Taylor CB, Jones M. A guided online and mobile self-help program for individuals with eating disorders: an iterative engagement and usability study. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(1):e7.
Not in our library10.2196/jmir.4972
28.
Palmier-Claus JE, Rogers A, Ainsworth J, Machin M, Barrowclough C, Laverty L, Barkus E, Kapur S, Wykes T, Lewis SW. Integrating mobile-phone based assessment for psychosis into people's everyday lives and clinical care: a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:34.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-244x-13-34
29.
Pelayo S, Ong M. Human factors and ergonomics in the design of health information technology: trends and progress in 2014. Yearb Med Inform. 2015;10(1):75-8.
Not in our library10.15265/iy-2015-033
30.
Prescher S, Deckwart O, Winkler S, Koehler K, Honold M, Koehler F. Telemedical care: feasibility and perception of the patients and physicians: a survey-based acceptance analysis of the Telemedical Interventional Monitoring in Heart Failure (TIM-HF) trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20(2 Suppl):18-24.
Not in our library10.1177/2047487313487483e
31.
Implementation of an innovative web-based conference table for community-dwelling frail older people, their informal caregivers and professionals: a process evaluation · 2012
Not checked
32.
Greenhalgh T, Hinder S, Stramer K, Bratan T, Russell J. Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace. BMJ. 2010;341:c5814.
Not in our library10.1136/bmj.c5814
33.
Ehrler F, Lovis C. Supporting elderly homecare with smartwatches: advantages and drawbacks. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:667-71.
Not in our library
34.
Kreps GL, Neuhauser L. New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):329-36.
Not in our library10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.013
35.
Radhakrishnan K, Xie B, Jacelon CS. Unsustainable home telehealth: a Texas qualitative study. Gerontologist. 2016;56(5):830-40.
Not in our library10.1093/geront/gnv050
36.
Sølling IK, Carøe P, Mathiesen KS. Development and implementation of IT require focus on user participation, acceptance and workflow. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;201:219-26.
Not in our library
37.
Zhang X, Yu P, Yan J. Patients' adoption of the e-appointment scheduling service: A case study in primary healthcare. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;204:176-81.
Not in our library
38.
Nielsen JA, Mathiassen L. Interpretive flexibility in mobile health: lessons from a government-sponsored home care program. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(10):e236.
Not in our library10.2196/jmir.2816
39.
Abbott KC, Mann S, DeWitt D, Sales LY, Kennedy S, Poropatich RK. Physician-to-physician consultation via electronic mail: the Walter Reed Army Medical Center Ask a Doc system. Mil Med. 2002;167(3):200-4.
Not in our library
40.
Eason K, Waterson P. The implications of e-health system delivery strategies for integrated healthcare: lessons from England. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(5):e96-e106.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.11.004
41.
Fonda SJ, Paulsen CA, Perkins J, Kedziora RJ, Rodbard D, Bursell SE. Usability test of an internet-based informatics tool for diabetes care providers: the comprehensive diabetes management program. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(1):16-24.
Not in our library10.1089/dia.2007.0252
42.
A Mobile App for Securely Capturing and Transferring Clinical Images to the Electronic Health Record: Description and Preliminary Usability Study · 2015
Not checked
43.
Lodhia V, Karanja S, Lees S, Bastawrous A. Acceptability, usability, and views on deployment of Peek, a mobile phone mHealth intervention for eye care in Kenya: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(2):e30.
Not in our library10.2196/mhealth.4746
44.
Online Mental Health Resources in Rural Australia: Clinician Perceptions of Acceptability · 2013
Not checked
45.
Devriendt E, Wellens NIH, Flamaing J, Declercq A, Moons P, Boonen S, Milisen K. The interRAI Acute Care instrument incorporated in an eHealth system for standardized and web-based geriatric assessment: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the acute hospital setting. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:90.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2318-13-90
46.
Chan FY, Soong B, Watson D, Whitehall J. Realtime fetal ultrasound by telemedicine in Queensland. A successful venture? J Telemed Telecare. 2001;7 Suppl 2:7-11.
Not in our library10.1258/1357633011937290
47.
Baldwin JL, Singh H, Sittig DF, Giardina TD. Patient portals and health apps: pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other. Healthc (Amst). 2017;5(3):81-85.
Not in our library10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.08.004
48.
George SM, Hamilton A, Baker R. Pre-experience perceptions about telemedicine among African Americans and Latinos in South Central Los Angeles. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15(6):525-30.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2008.0152
49.
Steele GC, Miller D, Kuluski K, Cott C. Tying eHealth tools to patient needs: exploring the use of ehealth for community-dwelling patients with complex chronic disease and disability. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3(4):e67.
Not in our library10.2196/resprot.3500
50.
Islam SMS, Tabassum R. Implementation of information and communication technologies for health in Bangladesh. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93(11):806-9.
Not in our library10.2471/blt.15.153684
51.
Darkins A. Program management of telemental health care services. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2001;14(2):80-7.
Not in our library10.1177/089198870101400207
52.
El-Mahalli AA, El-Khafif SH, Al-Qahtani MF. Successes and challenges in the implementation and application of telemedicine in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9:1-27.
Not in our library
53.
Greenberg A, Kramer S, Welch V, O'Sullivan E, Hall S. Cancer Care Ontario's computerized physician order entry system: a province-wide patient safety innovation. Healthc Q. 2006;9 Spec No:108-13.
Not in our library10.12927/hcq.2006.18468
54.
Taylor J, Coates E, Brewster L, Mountain G, Wessels B, Hawley MS. Examining the use of telehealth in community nursing: identifying the factors affecting frontline staff acceptance and telehealth adoption. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71(2):326-37.
Not in our library10.1111/jan.12480
55.
Al-Qirim N. Realizing telemedicine advantages at the national level: cases from the United Arab Emirates. Telemed J E Health. 2007;13(5):545-55.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2006.0087
56.
King G, Richards H, Godden D. Adoption of telemedicine in Scottish remote and rural general practices: a qualitative study. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(8):382-6.
Not in our library10.1258/135763307783064430
57.
Ndetei DM, Jenkins R. The implementation of mental health information systems in developing countries: challenges and opportunities. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2009;18(1):12-6.
Not in our library
58.
Ruas SSM, Assunção AÁ. Teleconsultations by primary care physicians of Belo Horizonte: challenges in the diffusion of innovation. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(5):409-14.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2012.0095
59.
Hung MC, Jen WY. The adoption of mobile health management services: an empirical study. J Med Syst. 2012;36(3):1381-8.
Not in our library10.1007/s10916-010-9600-2
60.
Choi W, Park M, Hong E, Kim S, Ahn R, Hong J, Song S, Kim T, Kim J, Yeo S. Early experiences with mobile electronic health records application in a tertiary hospital in Korea. Healthc Inform Res. 2015;21(4):292-8.
Not in our library10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.292
61.
Lin CH, Lin IC, Roan JS, Yeh JS. Critical factors influencing hospitals' adoption of HL7 version 2 standards: an empirical investigation. J Med Syst. 2012;36(3):1183-92.
Not in our library10.1007/s10916-010-9580-2
62.
The Long Way From Government Open Data to Mobile Health Apps: Overcoming Institutional Barriers in the US Federal Government · 2014
Not checked
63.
Schnall R, Odlum M, Gordon P, Bakken S. Barriers to implementation of a Continuity of Care Record (CCR) in HIV/AIDS care. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;146:248-52.
Not in our library
64.
Bull TP, Dewar AR, Malvey DM, Szalma JL. Considerations for the telehealth systems of tomorrow: an analysis of student perceptions of telehealth technologies. JMIR Med Educ. 2016;2(2):e11.
Not in our library10.2196/mededu.5392
65.
Davis TL, DiClemente R, Prietula M. Taking mHealth forward: examining the core characteristics. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(3):e97.
Not in our library10.2196/mhealth.5659
66.
Fico G, Arredondo MT. Use of an holistic approach for effective adoption of user-centred-design techniques in diabetes disease management: experiences in user need elicitation. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:2139-42.
Not in our library10.1109/embc.2015.7318812
67.
Finocchario-Kessler S, Odera I, Okoth V, Bawcom C, Gautney B, Khamadi S, Clark K, Goggin K. Lessons learned from implementing the HIV infant tracking system (HITSystem): a web-based intervention to improve early infant diagnosis in Kenya. Healthc (Amst). 2015;3(4):190-5.
Not in our library10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.07.004
68.
Follen M, Castaneda R, Mikelson M, Johnson D, Wilson A, Higuchi K. Implementing health information technology to improve the process of health care delivery: a case study. Dis Manag. 2007;10(4):208-15.
Not in our library10.1089/dis.2007.104706
69.
Janols R, Lind T, Göransson B, Sandblad B. Evaluation of user adoption during three module deployments of region-wide electronic patient record systems. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(6):438-49.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.02.003
70.
Ray KN, Felmet KA, Hamilton MF, Kuza CC, Saladino RA, Schultz BR, Watson RS, Kahn JM. Clinician attitudes toward adoption of pediatric emergency telemedicine in rural hospitals. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2017;33(4):250--257.
Not in our library10.1097/pec.0000000000000583
71.
Saranummi N, Beuscart R, Black N, Maglaveras N, Strano C, Karavidopoulou Y. Adoption space and the idea-to-market process of health technologies. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;224:9-14.
Not in our library
72.
SMARTHealth India: Development and Field Evaluation of a Mobile Clinical Decision Support System for Cardiovascular Diseases in Rural India · 2014
Not checked
73.
Aas IH. A qualitative study of the organizational consequences of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2001;7(1):18-26.
Not in our library10.1258/1357633011936093
74.
“You Get Reminded You’re a Sick Person”: Personal Data Tracking and Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions · 2015
No notice
75.
Bradford NK, Caffery LJ, Smith AC. Awareness, experiences and perceptions of telehealth in a rural Queensland community. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:427.
Not in our library10.1186/s12913-015-1094-7
76.
Damanpour S, Srivastava D, Nijhawan RI. Self-acquired patient images: the promises and the pitfalls. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2016;35(1):13-7.
Not in our library10.12788/j.sder.2016.013
77.
De Asmundis C, Ricciardi D, Namdar M, Pappaert G, Rodríguez-Mañero M, Wauters K, Casado-Arroyo R, Rao JJ, Bayrak F, Chierchia G, Sarkozy A, Brugada P. ICD function and dysfunction in patients with arrhythmogenic cardiac diseases: the role of home monitoring. Acta Cardiol. 2013;68(4):387-94.
Not in our library10.2143/ac.68.4.2988892
78.
Farzanfar R, Finkelstein J, Friedman RH. Testing the usability of two automated home-based patient-management systems. J Med Syst. 2004;28(2):143-53.
Not in our library10.1023/b:joms.0000023297.50379.3c
79.
Gabrielian S, Yuan A, Andersen RM, McGuire J, Rubenstein L, Sapir N, Gelberg L. Chronic disease management for recently homeless veterans: a clinical practice improvement program to apply home telehealth technology to a vulnerable population. Med Care. 2013;51(3 Suppl 1):S44-51.
Not in our library10.1097/mlr.0b013e31827808f6
80.
Holmström I. Decision aid software programs in telenursing: not used as intended? Experiences of Swedish telenurses. Nurs Health Sci. 2007;9(1):23-8.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-2018.2007.00299.x
81.
Cook EJ, Randhawa G, Sharp C, Ali N, Guppy A, Barton G, Bateman A, Crawford-White J. Exploring the factors that influence the decision to adopt and engage with an integrated assistive telehealth and telecare service in Cambridgeshire, UK: a nested qualitative study of patient 'users' and 'non-users'. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:137.
Not in our library10.1186/s12913-016-1379-5
82.
Motivators and Motivations to Persist With Online Psychological Interventions: A Qualitative Study of Treatment Completers · 2012
No notice
83.
Kapadia V, Ariani A, Li J, Ray PK. Emerging ICT implementation issues in aged care. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(11):892-900.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.07.002
84.
Hao WR, Hsu YH, Chen KC, Li HC, Iqbal U, Nguyen PA, Huang CW, Yang HC, Lee P, Li MH, Hlatshwayo SL, Li YC, Jian WS. LabPush: a pilot study of providing remote clinics with laboratory results via short message service (SMS) in Swaziland, Africa - a qualitative study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2015;118(1):77-83.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.10.005
85.
The Personal Health Record Paradox: Health Care Professionals’ Perspectives and the Information Ecology of Personal Health Record Systems in Organizational and Clinical Settings · 2013
Not checked
86.
Das A, Faxvaag A, Svanæs D. The impact of an eHealth portal on health care professionals’ interaction with patients: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(11):e267.
Not in our library10.2196/jmir.4950
87.
Davis MM, Currey JM, Howk S, DeSordi MR, Boise L, Fagnan LJ, Vuckovic N. A qualitative study of rural primary care clinician views on remote monitoring technologies. J Rural Health. 2014;30(1):69-78.
Not in our library10.1111/jrh.12027
88.
Koru G, Alhuwail D, Topaz M, Norcio AF, Mills ME. Investigating the challenges and opportunities in home care to facilitate effective information technology adoption. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17(1):53-8.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jamda.2015.10.008
89.
Loscertales FR, Rubió FS. [Facilitators in the implantation of telemedicine services. Perspective of professionals involved in its design and implementation]. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2011;34(2):235-44.
Not in our library10.4321/s1137-66272011000200009
90.
Menachemi N, Brooks RG, Schwalenstocker E, Simpson L. Use of health information technology by children's hospitals in the United States. Pediatrics. 2009;123 Suppl 2:S80-4.
Not in our library10.1542/peds.2008-1755f
91.
Randell R, Backhouse MR, Nelson EA. Videoconferencing for site initiations in clinical studies: mixed methods evaluation of usability, acceptability, and impact on recruitment. Inform Health Soc Care. 2016;41(4):362-72.
Not in our library10.3109/17538157.2015.1064424
92.
Rossos PG, St-Cyr O, Purdy B, Toenjes C, Masino C, Chmelnitsky D. Hype, harmony and human factors: applying user-centered design to achieve sustainable telehealth program adoption and growth. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;209:121-7.
Not in our library
93.
MacNeill V, Sanders C, Fitzpatrick R, Hendy J, Barlow J, Knapp M, Rogers A, Bardsley M, Newman SP. Experiences of front-line health professionals in the delivery of telehealth: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64(624):e401-7.
Not in our library10.3399/bjgp14x680485
94.
Biggs K, Lowe P, Walsh J, Lagios K. Audit of a sexual health website email link for general practitioners. Int J STD AIDS. 2010;21(1):60-2.
Not in our library10.1258/ijsa.2009.009192
95.
More Than Telemonitoring: Health Provider Use and Nonuse of Life-Log Data in Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Weight Management · 2015
Not checked
96.
de Grood C, Eso K, Santana MJ. Physicians' experience adopting the electronic transfer of care communication tool: barriers and opportunities. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015;8:21-31.
Not in our library10.2147/jmdh.s72953
97.
Lamothe L, Fortin J, Labbé F, Gagnon M, Messikh D. Impacts of telehomecare on patients, providers, and organizations. Telemed J E Health. 2006;12(3):363-9.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2006.12.363
98.
McCullough JM, Zimmerman FJ, Bell DS, Rodriguez HP. Electronic health information exchange in underserved settings: examining initiatives in small physician practices & community health centers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:415.
Not in our library10.1186/1472-6963-14-415
99.
Schooley B, Walczak S, Hikmet N, Patel N. Impacts of mobile tablet computing on provider productivity, communications, and the process of care. Int J Med Inform. 2016;88:62-70.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.01.010
100.
Singh R, Mathiassen L, Stachura ME, Astapova EV. Sustainable rural telehealth innovation: a public health case study. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(4):985-1004.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01116.x
101.
Adolescents Just Do Not Know What They Want: A Qualitative Study to Describe Obese Adolescents’ Experiences of Text Messaging to Support Behavior Change Maintenance Post Intervention · 2014
Not checked
102.
Villalba E, Casas I, Abadie F, Lluch M. Integrated personal health and care services deployment: experiences in eight European countries. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(7):626-35.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.03.002
103.
Barrett M, Larson A, Carville K, Ellis I. Challenges faced in implementation of a telehealth enabled chronic wound care system. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9(3):1154.
Not in our library
104.
Roig F, Saigí F. Barriers to the normalization of telemedicine in a healthcare system model based on purchasing of healthcare services using providers' contracts. Gac Sanit. 2011;25(5):397-402.
Not in our library10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.01.004
105.
Sørensen T, Dyb K, Rygh E, Salvesen R, Thomassen L. A qualitative description of telemedicine for acute stroke care in Norway: technology is not the issue. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:643.
Not in our library10.1186/s12913-014-0643-9
106.
Embi PJ, Weir C, Efthimiadis EN, Thielke SM, Hedeen AN, Hammond KW. Computerized provider documentation: findings and implications of a multisite study of clinicians and administrators. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(4):718-26.
Not in our library10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000946
107.
Fairbrother P, Ure J, Hanley J, McCloughan L, Denvir M, Sheikh A, McKinstry B, Telescot PT. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: the views of patients and healthcare professionals - a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1-2):132-44.
Not in our library10.1111/jocn.12137
108.
Foldy S. Inventory of electronic health information exchange in Wisconsin, 2006. WMJ. 2007;106(3):120-5.
Not in our library
109.
Levin D. MHealth: promise and pitfalls. Front Health Serv Manage. 2012;29(2):33-9; discussion 40.
Not in our library
110.
Park H, Chon Y, Lee J, Choi IeJ, Yoon KH. Service design attributes affecting diabetic patient preferences of telemedicine in South Korea. Telemed J E Health. 2011;17(6):442-51.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2010.0201
111.
Fuji KT, Abbott AA, Galt KA. A qualitative study of how patients with type 2 diabetes use an electronic stand-alone personal health record. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21(4):296-300.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2014.0084
112.
Goldberg EM, Levy PD. New approaches to evaluating and monitoring blood pressure. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2016;18(6):49.
Not in our library10.1007/s11906-016-0650-9
113.
Glick G, Druss B, Pina J, Lally C, Conde M. Use of mobile technology in a community mental health setting. J Telemed Telecare. 2016;22(7):430-435.
Not in our library10.1177/1357633x15613236
114.
Successful Organizational Strategies to Sustain Use of A-CHESS: A Mobile Intervention for Individuals With Alcohol Use Disorders · 2015
Not checked
115.
Jamoom EW, Patel V, Furukawa MF, King J. EHR adopters vs. non-adopters: impacts of, barriers to, and federal initiatives for EHR adoption. Healthc (Amst). 2014;2(1):33-9.
Not in our library10.1016/j.hjdsi.2013.12.004
116.
Minichiello V, Rahman S, Dune T, Scott J, Dowsett G. E-health: potential benefits and challenges in providing and accessing sexual health services. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:790.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2458-13-790
117.
Cason J, Behl D, Ringwalt S. Overview of states' use of telehealth for the delivery of early intervention (IDEA Part C) services. Int J Telerehabil. 2012;4(2):39-46.
Not in our library10.5195/ijt.2012.6105
118.
Lee SI, Park H, Kim JW, Hwang H, Cho EY, Kim Y, Ha K. Physicians' perceptions and use of a health information exchange: a pilot program in South Korea. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18(8):604-12.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2011.0261
119.
Leung GM, Yu PL, Wong IO, Johnston JM, Tin KY. Incentives and barriers that influence clinical computerization in Hong Kong: a population-based physician survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(2):201-12.
Not in our library10.1197/jamia.m1202
120.
Mattocks K, Lalime K, Tate JP, Giannotti TE, Carr K, Carrabba A, Blum T, Meehan TP. The state of physician office-based health information technology in Connecticut: current use, barriers and future plans. Conn Med. 2007;71(1):27-31.
Not in our library
121.
Integrating telecare for chronic disease management in the community: What needs to be done? · 2011
No notice
122.
Molfenter T, Boyle M, Holloway D, Zwick J. Trends in telemedicine use in addiction treatment. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2015;10:14.
Not in our library10.1186/s13722-015-0035-4
123.
Woodward A, Fyfe M, Handuleh J, Patel P, Godman B, Leather A, Finlayson A. Diffusion of e-health innovations in 'post-conflict' settings: a qualitative study on the personal experiences of health workers. Hum Resour Health. 2014;12:22.
Not in our library10.1186/1478-4491-12-22
124.
Al-Qirim N. Championing telemedicine adoption and utilization in healthcare organizations in New Zealand. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(1):42-54.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.02.001
125.
Alaboudi A, Atkins A, Sharp B, Balkhair A, Alzahrani M, Sunbul T. Barriers and challenges in adopting Saudi telemedicine network: the perceptions of decision makers of healthcare facilities in Saudi Arabia. J Infect Public Health. 2016;9(6):725-733.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jiph.2016.09.001
126.
Chronaki CE, Vardas P. Remote monitoring costs, benefits, and reimbursement: a European perspective. Europace. 2013;15 Suppl 1:i59-i64.
Not in our library10.1093/europace/eut110
127.
Coustasse A, Deslich S, Bailey D, Hairston A, Paul D. A business case for tele-intensive care units. Perm J. 2014;18(4):76-84.
Not in our library10.7812/tpp/14-004
128.
Cusack CM, Pan E, Hook JM, Vincent A, Kaelber DC, Middleton B. The value proposition in the widespread use of telehealth. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(4):167-8.
Not in our library10.1258/jtt.2007.007043
129.
DeWorsop D, Creatura G, Bluez G, Thurnauer H, Forselius-Bielen K, Ranganathan M, Deaso E, Bhat JA, D'Souza DC. Feasibility and success of cell-phone assisted remote observation of medication adherence (CAROMA) in clinical trials. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;163:24-30.
Not in our library10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.045
130.
Gabriel MH, Jones EB, Samy L, King J. Progress and challenges: implementation and use of health information technology among critical-access hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(7):1262-70.
Not in our library10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0279
131.
Pan E, Cusack C, Hook J, Vincent A, Kaelber DC, Bates DW, Middleton B. The value of provider-to-provider telehealth. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14(5):446-53.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2008.0017
132.
Rozenblum R, Jang Y, Zimlichman E, Salzberg C, Tamblyn M, Buckeridge D, Forster A, Bates DW, Tamblyn R. A qualitative study of Canada's experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology. CMAJ. 2011;183(5):E281-8.
Not in our library10.1503/cmaj.100856
133.
Lee ACW, Billings M. Telehealth implementation in a skilled nursing facility: case report for physical therapist practice in Washington. Phys Ther. 2016;96(2):252-9.
Not in our library10.2522/ptj.20150079
134.
Abramson EL, Silver M, Kaushal R. Meaningful use status and participation in health information exchange among New York State hospitals: a longitudinal assessment. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40(10):452-3.
Not in our library10.1016/s1553-7250(14)40058-8
135.
Achey M, Aldred JL, Aljehani N, Bloem BR, Biglan KM, Chan P, Cubo E, Dorsey ER, Goetz CG, Guttman M, Hassan A, Khandhar SM, Mari Z, Spindler M, Tanner CM, van DHP, Walker R, Wilkinson JR, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Telemedicine Task Force. The past, present, and future of telemedicine for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2014;29(7):871-83.
Not in our library10.1002/mds.25903
136.
Al-Qirim NAY. Teledermatology: the case of adoption and diffusion of telemedicine health Waikato in New Zealand. Telemed J E Health. 2003;9(2):167-77.
Not in our library10.1089/153056203766437507
137.
Ayatollahi H, Mirani N, Haghani H. Electronic health records: what are the most important barriers? Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2014;11:1c.
Not in our library
138.
Burke BL, Hall RW, Section on Telehealth Care. Telemedicine: pediatric applications. Pediatrics. 2015;136(1):e293-308.
Not in our library10.1542/peds.2015-1517
139.
Driessen J, Castle NG, Handler SM. Perceived benefits, barriers, and drivers of telemedicine from the perspective of skilled nursing facility administrative staff stakeholders. J Appl Gerontol. 2018;37(1):110-120.
Not in our library10.1177/0733464816651884
140.
O'Toole LJ, Slade CP, Brewer GA, Gase LN. Barriers and facilitators to implementing primary stroke center policy in the United States: results from 4 case study states. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(3):561-6.
Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2010.197954
141.
de Bustos EM, Vuillier F, Chavot D, Moulin T. Telemedicine in stroke: organizing a network--rationale and baseline principles. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;27 Suppl 4:1-8.
Not in our library10.1159/000213052
142.
Kulcsar M, Gilchrist S, George MG. Improving stroke outcomes in rural areas through telestroke programs: an examination of barriers, facilitators, and state policies. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(1):3-10.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2013.0048
143.
Rogove HJ, McArthur D, Demaerschalk BM, Vespa PM. Barriers to telemedicine: survey of current users in acute care units. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18(1):48-53.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2011.0071
144.
Cho I, Kim J, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim Y. Design and implementation of a standards-based interoperable clinical decision support architecture in the context of the Korean EHR. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(9):611-22.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.06.002
145.
Alajlani M, Clarke M. Effect of culture on acceptance of telemedicine in Middle Eastern countries: case study of Jordan and Syria. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(4):305-11.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2012.0106
146.
Adler-Milstein J, Sarma N, Woskie LR, Jha AK. A comparison of how four countries use health IT to support care for people with chronic conditions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(9):1559-66.
Not in our library10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0424
147.
Mettler T. Anticipating mismatches of HIT investments: Developing a viability-fit model for e-health services. Int J Med Inform. 2016;85(1):104-15.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.10.002
148.
Stevenson P, Finnane AR, Soyer HP. Teledermatology and clinical photography: safeguarding patient privacy and mitigating medico-legal risk. Med J Aust. 2016;204(5):198-200e1.
Not in our library10.5694/mja15.00996
149.
Mozer R, Bradford NK, Caffery LJ, Smith AC. Identifying perceived barriers to videoconferencing by rehabilitation medicine providers. J Telemed Telecare. 2015;21(8):479-84.
Not in our library10.1177/1357633x15607136
150.
Alkhaldi B, Sahama T, Huxley C, Gajanayake R. Barriers to implementing eHealth: a multi-dimensional perspective. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:875-9.
Not in our library
151.
Alsulame K, Khalifa M, Househ M. eHealth in Saudi Arabia: current trends, challenges and recommendations. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;213:233-6.
Not in our library
152.
Integrated Personal Health Records: Transformative Tools for Consumer-Centric Care · 2008
No notice
153.
Dixon BE, Simonaitis L, Goldberg HS, Paterno MD, Schaeffer M, Hongsermeier T, Wright A, Middleton B. A pilot study of distributed knowledge management and clinical decision support in the cloud. Artif Intell Med. 2013;59(1):45-53.
Not in our library10.1016/j.artmed.2013.03.004
154.
May C, Harrison R, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Mair F, Wallace P, Telemedicine Adoption Study Group. Understanding the normalization of telemedicine services through qualitative evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(6):596-604.
Not in our library10.1197/jamia.m1145
155.
Owens DK. Use of medical informatics to implement and develop clinical practice guidelines. West J Med. 1998;168(3):166-75.
Not in our library
156.
Patel RN, Antonarakis GS. Factors influencing the adoption and implementation of teledentistry in the UK, with a focus on orthodontics. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(5):424-31.
Not in our library10.1111/cdoe.12029
157.
Personalized Telehealth in the Future: A Global Research Agenda · 2016
No notice
158.
Hawker F, Kavanagh S, Yellowlees P, Kalucy RS. Telepsychiatry in South Australia. J Telemed Telecare. 1998;4(4):187-94.
Not in our library10.1258/1357633981932181
159.
Lanzola G, Toffanin C, Di Palma F, Del Favero S, Magni L, Bellazzi R. Designing an artificial pancreas architecture: the AP@home experience. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2015;53(12):1271-83.
Not in our library10.1007/s11517-014-1231-1
160.
May C. Mobilising modern facts: health technology assessment and the politics of evidence. Sociol Health Illn. 2006;28(5):513-32.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00505.x
161.
Zelmer J, Hagens S. Understanding the gap between desire for and use of consumer health solutions. Healthc Pap. 2014;13(4):9-21.
Not in our library10.12927/hcpap.2014.23871
162.
Cook DJ, Doolittle GC, Ferguson D, Hanks N, Hood J, Howard M, Troha J, Mehling D, Zurbuchen N. Explaining the adoption of telemedicine services: an analysis of a paediatric telemedicine service. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8 Suppl 2:106-7.
Not in our library10.1177/1357633x020080s248
163.
Menachemi N, Burke DE, Ayers DJ. Factors affecting the adoption of telemedicine--a multiple adopter perspective. J Med Syst. 2004;28(6):617-32.
Not in our library10.1023/b:joms.0000044964.49821.df
164.
Kierkegaard P. Interoperability after deployment: persistent challenges and regional strategies in Denmark. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27(2):147-53.
Not in our library10.1093/intqhc/mzv009
165.
Doupi P. Evolving health IT systems evaluation: the convergence of health informatics and HTA. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;222:220-36.
Not in our library
166.
Implementing telehealth to support medical practice in rural/remote regions: what are the conditions for success? · 2006
No notice
167.
LeRouge C, Garfield MJ. Crossing the telemedicine chasm: have the U.S. barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine been significantly reduced? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(12):6472-84.
Not in our library10.3390/ijerph10126472
168.
Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Identify Barriers and Facilitators for the Implementation of an Internet-Based Patient-Provider Communication Service in Five Settings: A Qualitative Study · 2015
No notice
169.
Charani E, Kyratsis Y, Lawson W, Wickens H, Brannigan ET, Moore LSP, Holmes AH. An analysis of the development and implementation of a smartphone application for the delivery of antimicrobial prescribing policy: lessons learnt. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68(4):960-7.
Not in our library10.1093/jac/dks492
170.
Bouamrane M, Mair FS. Implementation of an integrated preoperative care pathway and regional electronic clinical portal for preoperative assessment. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:93.
Not in our library10.1186/1472-6947-14-93
171.
Bullard MJ, Emond SD, Graham TAD, Ho K, Holroyd BR. Informatics and knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(11):996-1002.
Not in our library10.1197/j.aem.2007.06.032
172.
Umali E, McCool J, Whittaker R. Possibilities and expectations for mHealth in the Pacific Islands: insights from key informants. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(1):e9.
Not in our library10.2196/mhealth.4626
173.
Hernández V, Blanquer I. The Grid as a healthcare provision tool. Methods Inf Med. 2005;44(2):144-8.
Not in our library
174.
Sweet LE, Moulaison HL. Electronic health records data and metadata: challenges for big data in the United States. Big Data. 2013;1(4):245-51.
Not in our library10.1089/big.2013.0023
175.
Wake DJ, He J, Czesak AM, Mughal F, Cunningham SG. MyDiabetesMyWay: an evolving national data driven diabetes self-management platform. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(5):1050-8.
Not in our library10.1177/1932296816648168
176.
Bond CS. Telehealth as a tool for independent self-management by people living with long term conditions. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;206:1-6.
Not in our library
177.
Bond CS, Worswick L. Self management and telehealth: lessons learnt from the evaluation of a Dorset telehealth program. Patient. 2015;8(4):311-6.
Not in our library10.1007/s40271-014-0091-y
178.
Camerini L, Camerini A, Schulz PJ. Do participation and personalization matter? A model-driven evaluation of an Internet-based patient education intervention for fibromyalgia patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(2):229-34.
Not in our library10.1016/j.pec.2013.04.007
179.
Fergie G, Hunt K, Hilton S. Social media as a space for support: young adults' perspectives on producing and consuming user-generated content about diabetes and mental health. Soc Sci Med. 2016;170:46-54.
Not in our library10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.10.006
180.
Griebel L, Sedlmayr B, Prokosch H, Criegee-Rieck M, Sedlmayr M. Key factors for a successful implementation of personalized e-health services. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:965.
Not in our library
181.
Schwarz F, Ward J, Willcock S. E-Health readiness in outback communities: an exploratory study. Rural Remote Health. 2014;14(3):2871.
Not in our library
182.
Tran BQ, Buckley KM, Bertera EM, Gonzales PL. Benefits & barriers to adoption of health IT in an elderly low-income, minority community-based environment. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:6441-3.
Not in our library10.1109/iembs.2009.5333537
183.
Duman-Lubberding S, van Uden-Kraan CF, Peek N, Cuijpers P, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. An eHealth application in head and neck cancer survivorship care: health care professionals’ perspectives. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(10):e235.
Not in our library10.2196/jmir.4870
184.
Peng W, Yuan S, Holtz BE. Exploring the challenges and opportunities of health mobile apps for individuals with type 2 diabetes living in rural communities. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22(9):733-8.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2015.0180
185.
Reasons and Barriers for Using a Patient Portal: Survey Among Patients With Diabetes Mellitus · 2014
Not checked
186.
Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study · 2012
No notice
187.
Vriend I, Coehoorn I, Verhagen E. Implementation of an app-based neuromuscular training programme to prevent ankle sprains: a process evaluation using the RE-AIM Framework. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(7):484-8.
Not in our library10.1136/bjsports-2013-092896
188.
Hanna L, May C, Fairhurst K. Non-face-to-face consultations and communications in primary care: the role and perspective of general practice managers in Scotland. Inform Prim Care. 2011;19(1):17-24.
Not in our library10.14236/jhi.v19i1.789
189.
Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, Overhage JM, Sands DZ. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(2):121-6.
Not in our library10.1197/jamia.m2025
190.
Gagnon M, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):212-20.
Not in our library10.1093/jamia/ocv052
191.
Harvey J, Dopson S, McManus RJ, Powell J. Factors influencing the adoption of self-management solutions: an interpretive synthesis of the literature on stakeholder experiences. Implement Sci. 2015;10:159.
Not in our library10.1186/s13012-015-0350-x
192.
Zhang X, Yu P, Yan J, Ton AMSI. Using diffusion of innovation theory to understand the factors impacting patient acceptance and use of consumer e-health innovations: a case study in a primary care clinic. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:71.
Not in our library10.1186/s12913-015-0726-2
193.
Lober WB, Quiles C, Wagner S, Cassagnol R, Lamothes R, Alexis DRP, Joseph P, Sutton P, Puttkammer N, Kitahata MM. Three years experience with the implementation of a networked electronic medical record in Haiti. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008;434-8.
Not in our library
194.
Mitchell JG. The uneven diffusion of telemedicine services in Australia. J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5 Suppl 1:S45-7.
Not in our library10.1258/1357633991932504
195.
Taylor J, Coates L. Caring from a distance: the role of telehealth. Nurs Times. 2015;111(28-29):18-20.
Not in our library
196.
Moxham C, Chambers N, Girling J, Garg S, Jelfs E, Bremner J. Perspectives on the enablers of e-heath adoption: an international interview study of leading practitioners. Health Serv Manage Res. 2012;25(3):129-37.
Not in our library10.1258/hsmr.2012.012018
197.
Paré G, Trudel M. Knowledge barriers to PACS adoption and implementation in hospitals. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(1):22-33.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.01.004
198.
Vimarlund V, Le Rouge C. Barriers and opportunities to the widespread adoption of telemedicine: a bi-country evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:933.
Not in our library
199.
Nicholas J, Boydell K, Christensen H. mHealth in psychiatry: time for methodological change. Evid Based Ment Health. 2016;19(2):33-4.
Not in our library10.1136/eb-2015-102278
200.
Meyer R. A bio-medical informatics perspective on human factors: how human factors influence adoption of healthcare information technology. Yearb Med Inform. 2010;21-4.
Not in our library
201.
Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress · 2012
No notice
202.
Cimperman M, Brenčič MM, Trkman P, Stanonik MDL. Older adults' perceptions of home telehealth services. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(10):786-90.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2012.0272
203.
Integrating Mobile Phones into Medical Abortion Provision: Intervention Development, Use, and Lessons Learned From a Randomized Controlled Trial · 2014
Not checked
204.
van Deursen AJ, van Dijk JA. Internet skills performance tests: are people ready for eHealth? J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(2):e35.
Not in our library10.2196/jmir.1581
205.
Bielli E, Carminati F, La Capra S, Lina M, Brunelli C, Tamburini M. A wireless health outcomes monitoring system (WHOMS): development and field testing with cancer patients using mobile phones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004;4:7.
Not in our library10.1186/1472-6947-4-7
206.
Young R, Willis E, Cameron G, Geana M. “Willing but unwilling”: attitudinal barriers to adoption of home-based health information technology among older adults. Health Informatics J. 2014;20(2):127-35.
Not in our library10.1177/1460458213486906
207.
Armer JM, Harris K, Dusold JM. Application of the concerns-based adoption model to the installation of telemedicine in a rural Missouri nursing home. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2004;20(1):42-9.
Not in our library10.1097/00124645-200401000-00008
208.
Plaete J, Crombez G, DeSmet A, Deveugele M, Verloigne M, De Bourdeaudhuij I. What do general practitioners think about an online self-regulation programme for health promotion? Focus group interviews. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):3.
Not in our library10.1186/s12875-014-0214-5
209.
Villalba-Mora E, Casas I, Lupiañez-Villanueva F, Maghiros I. Adoption of health information technologies by physicians for clinical practice: the Andalusian case. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(7):477-85.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.03.002
210.
DeLuca JM, Enmark R. E-health: the changing model of healthcare. Front Health Serv Manage. 2000;17(1):3-15.
Not in our library
211.
Baumel A, Muench F. Heuristic evaluation of Ehealth interventions: establishing standards that relate to the therapeutic process perspective. JMIR Ment Health. 2016;3(1):e5.
Not in our library10.2196/mental.4563
212.
Hsieh H, Tsai C, Chih W, Lin H. Factors affecting success of an integrated community-based telehealth system. Technol Health Care. 2015;23 Suppl 2:S189-96.
Not in our library10.3233/thc-150953
213.
Quinlivan JA, Lyons S, Petersen RW. Attitudes of pregnant women towards personally controlled electronic, hospital-held, and patient-held medical record systems: a survey study. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(9):810-5.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2013.0342
214.
Bruns NE, Irtan S, Rothenberg SS, Bogen EM, Kotobi H, Ponsky TA. Trans-Atlantic telementoring with pediatric surgeons: technical considerations and lessons learned. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(1):75-8.
Not in our library10.1089/lap.2015.0131
215.
Mars M. Health capacity development through telemedicine in Africa. Yearb Med Inform. 2010;87-93.
Not in our library
216.
Ruxwana N, Herselman M, Pottas D. A Generic Quality Assurance Model (GQAM) for successful e-health implementation in rural hospitals in South Africa. Health Inf Manag. 2014;43(1):26-36.
Not in our library10.1177/183335831404300104
217.
Raisinghani MS, Young E. Personal health records: key adoption issues and implications for management. Int J Electron Healthc. 2008;4(1):67-77.
Not in our library10.1504/ijeh.2008.018921
218.
George S, Hamilton A, Baker RS. How do low-income urban African Americans and Latinos feel about telemedicine? A diffusion of innovation analysis. Int J Telemed Appl. 2012;2012:715194.
Not in our library10.1155/2012/715194
219.
Anvari M. Robot-assisted remote telepresence surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg. 2004;11(2):123-8.
Not in our library10.1177/107155170401100209
220.
Gorini A, Gaggioli A, Vigna C, Riva G. A second life for eHealth: prospects for the use of 3-D virtual worlds in clinical psychology. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3):e21.
Not in our library10.2196/jmir.1029
221.
Obstfelder A, Engeseth KH, Wynn R. Characteristics of successfully implemented telemedical applications. Implement Sci. 2007;2:25.
Not in our library10.1186/1748-5908-2-25
222.
Nijland N, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Boer H, Steehouder MF, Seydel ER. Increasing the use of e-consultation in primary care: results of an online survey among non-users of e-consultation. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(10):688-703.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.06.002
223.
Dadd M, Doyle B, Wilson L, Gunaratnam M. Lessons learned from the Hospital Without Walls project. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8 Suppl 3:S3:11-4.
Not in our library
224.
Cocosila M, Archer N. Perceptions of chronically ill and healthy consumers about electronic personal health records: a comparative empirical investigation. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e005304.
Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005304
225.
Courtney KL. Privacy and senior willingness to adopt smart home information technology in residential care facilities. Methods Inf Med. 2008;47(1):76-81.
Not in our library10.3414/me9104
226.
Barbieri JS, Nelson CA, Bream KD, Kovarik CL. Primary care providers' perceptions of mobile store-and-forward teledermatology. Dermatol Online J. 2015;21(8).
Not in our library
227.
Courtney KL, Demiris G, Rantz M, Skubic M. Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. Inform Prim Care. 2008;16(3):195-201.
Not in our library10.14236/jhi.v16i3.694
228.
Wilkowska W, Ziefle M. Privacy and data security in E-health: requirements from the user's perspective. Health Informatics J. 2012;18(3):191-201.
Not in our library10.1177/1460458212442933
229.
Driessen J, Bonhomme A, Chang W, Nace DA, Kavalieratos D, Perera S, Handler SM. Nursing home provider perceptions of telemedicine for reducing potentially avoidable hospitalizations. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17(6):519-24.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jamda.2016.02.004
230.
McGraw D, Dempsey JX, Harris L, Goldman J. Privacy as an enabler, not an impediment: building trust into health information exchange. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):416-27.
Not in our library10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.416
231.
Zanaboni P, Knarvik U, Wootton R. Adoption of routine telemedicine in Norway: the current picture. Glob Health Action. 2014;7:22801.
Not in our library10.3402/gha.v7.22801
232.
Martin AB, Probst JC, Shah K, Chen Z, Garr D. Differences in readiness between rural hospitals and primary care providers for telemedicine adoption and implementation: findings from a statewide telemedicine survey. J Rural Health. 2012;28(1):8-15.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1748-0361.2011.00369.x
233.
Williams G, Doughty K, Bradley DA. Safety and risk issues in using telecare. J Telemed Telecare. 2000;6(5):249-62.
Not in our library10.1258/1357633001935833
234.
Lewis T, Synowiec C, Lagomarsino G, Schweitzer J. E-health in low- and middle-income countries: findings from the Center for Health Market Innovations. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(5):332-40.
Not in our library10.2471/blt.11.099820
235.
De Simone A, Leoni L, Luzi M, Amellone C, Stabile G, La Rocca V, Capucci A, D'onofrio A, Ammendola E, Accardi F, Valsecchi S, Buja G. Remote monitoring improves outcome after ICD implantation: the clinical efficacy in the management of heart failure (EFFECT) study. Europace. 2015;17(8):1267-75.
Not in our library10.1093/europace/euu318
236.
Lau AY, Arguel A, Dennis S, Liaw S, Coiera E. “Why Didn’t it Work?” Lessons from a randomized controlled trial of a web-based personally controlled health management system for adults with asthma. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(12):e283.
Not in our library10.2196/jmir.4734
237.
Hardisty AR, Peirce SC, Preece A, Bolton CE, Conley EC, Gray WA, Rana OF, Yousef Z, Elwyn G. Bridging two translation gaps: a new informatics research agenda for telemonitoring of chronic disease. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(10):734-44.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.07.002
238.
Naik AD, Lawrence B, Kiefer L, Ramos K, Utech A, Masozera N, Rao R, Petersen NJ, Kunik ME, Cully JA. Building a primary care/research partnership: lessons learned from a telehealth intervention for diabetes and depression. Fam Pract. 2015;32(2):216-23.
Not in our library10.1093/fampra/cmu084
239.
Poole ES. HCI and mobile health interventions: how human-computer interaction can contribute to successful mobile health interventions. Transl Behav Med. 2013;3(4):402-5.
Not in our library10.1007/s13142-013-0214-3
240.
Kruse CS, Regier V, Rheinboldt KT. Barriers over time to full implementation of health information exchange in the United States. JMIR Med Inform. 2014;2(2):e26.
Not in our library10.2196/medinform.3625
241.
Gardner RM. Computerized clinical decision-support in respiratory care. Respir Care. 2004;49(4):378-86; discussion 386.
Not in our library
242.
Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):765.
Not in our library10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8f
243.
Davis MM, Freeman M, Kaye J, Vuckovic N, Buckley DI. A systematic review of clinician and staff views on the acceptability of incorporating remote monitoring technology into primary care. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(5):428-38.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2013.0166
244.
Bowens FM, Frye PA, Jones WA. Health information technology: integration of clinical workflow into meaningful use of electronic health records. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2010;7:1d.
Not in our library
245.
LeTourneau B. Managing physician resistance to change. J Healthc Manag. 2004;49(5):286-8.
Not in our library
246.
Narine L, Persaud DD. Gaining and maintaining commitment to large-scale change in healthcare organizations. Health Serv Manage Res. 2003;16(3):179-87.
Not in our library10.1258/095148403322167933
247.
Appelbaum SH, Wohl L. Transformation or change: some prescriptions for health care organizations. Manag Serv Q. 2000;10(5):279-298.
Not in our library10.1108/09604520010345768
248.
Pardo del Val M, Martínez Fuentes C. Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study. Manag Decis. 2003;41(2):148-155.
Not in our library10.1108/00251740310457597
249.
Landaeta RE, Mun JH, Rabadi G, Levin D. Identifying sources of resistance to change in healthcare. Int J Healthc Technol Manag. 2008;9(1):74.
Not in our library10.1504/ijhtm.2008.016849
250.
Hickson R, Talbert J, Thornbury WC, Perin NR, Goodin AJ. Online medical care: the current state of “eVisits” in acute primary care delivery. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21(2):90-6.
Not in our library10.1089/tmj.2014.0022
251.
Declerck G, Aimé X. Reasons (not) to spend a few billions more on EHRs: how human factors research can help. Yearb Med Inform. 2014;9:90-6.
Not in our library10.15265/iy-2014-0033
252.
Frauenberger C, Good J, Fitzpatrick G, Iversen OS. In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2015;74:93-106.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.004

Cited by papers we hold 6

Healthcare providers’ readiness for electronic health record adoption: a cross-sectional study during pre-implementation phase · 2022
Not checked
Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study · 2020
No notice
Potential of Mobile Technology to Relieve the Urgent Mental Health Needs in China: Web-Based Survey · 2020
Not checked
eHealth initiatives; the relationship between project work and institutional practice · 2019
Not checked
Factors for Supporting Primary Care Physician Engagement With Patient Apps for Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management That Link to Primary Care: Interview Study · 2019
Not checked
Using a Gratitude Intervention to Improve the Lives of Women With Breast Cancer: A Daily Diary Study · 2019
Not checked

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.

Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract

Full text

Introduction

Methods

Search Strategy

Study Selection

Data Collection and Synthesis

Category

Success and Failure

Entity

Full-Text Analysis

Results

Key Question 1 (Barriers and Facilitators)

Key Question 2 (Success/Failure Factors)

General Findings

Key Question 1 (Barriers and Facilitators)

Key Question 2 (Success/Failure Factors)

What is the Importance of eHealth to Workflow?

How Are the Design and the Outcomes of eHealth Related?

Conclusions to Key Question 1

Conclusions to Key Question 2

Limitations

Future Research

References 252

Cited by papers we hold 6

Reads

Read by people on this page

Checked or read by AI through naulon

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?