Elske Ammenwerth, Georg Duftschmid, Zaid Al-Hamdan, Hala Bawadi, Ngai T Cheung, Kyung-Hee Cho, Guillermo Goldfarb, Kemal H Gülkesen, Nissim Harel, Michio Kimura, Önder Kırca, Hiroshi Kondoh, Sabine Koch, Hadas Lewy, Dara Mize, Sari Palojoki, Hyeoun-Ae Park, Christopher Pearce, Fernan G B de Quirós, Kaija Saranto, Christoph Seidel, Vivian Vimarlund, Martin C Were, Johanna Westbrook, Chung P Wong, Reinhold Haux, Christoph U Lehmann
{"title":"14个国家6项基本电子卫生指标的国际比较:一项电子卫生基准研究。","authors":"Elske Ammenwerth, Georg Duftschmid, Zaid Al-Hamdan, Hala Bawadi, Ngai T Cheung, Kyung-Hee Cho, Guillermo Goldfarb, Kemal H Gülkesen, Nissim Harel, Michio Kimura, Önder Kırca, Hiroshi Kondoh, Sabine Koch, Hadas Lewy, Dara Mize, Sari Palojoki, Hyeoun-Ae Park, Christopher Pearce, Fernan G B de Quirós, Kaija Saranto, Christoph Seidel, Vivian Vimarlund, Martin C Were, Johanna Westbrook, Chung P Wong, Reinhold Haux, Christoph U Lehmann","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1715796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many countries adopt eHealth applications to support patient-centered care. Through information exchange, these eHealth applications may overcome institutional data silos and support holistic and ubiquitous (regional or national) information logistics. Available eHealth indicators mostly describe usage and acceptance of eHealth in a country. The eHealth indicators focusing on the cross-institutional availability of patient-related information for health care professionals, patients, and care givers are rare.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to present eHealth indicators on cross-institutional availability of relevant patient data for health care professionals, as well as for patients and their caregivers across 14 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States) to compare our indicators and the resulting data for the examined countries with other eHealth benchmarks and to extend and explore changes to a comparable survey in 2017. We defined \"availability of patient data\" as the ability to access data in and to add data to the patient record in the respective country.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The invited experts from each of the 14 countries provided the indicator data for their country to reflect the situation on August 1, 2019, as date of reference. Overall, 60 items were aggregated to six eHealth indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Availability of patient-related information varies strongly by country. Health care professionals can access patients' most relevant cross-institutional health record data fully in only four countries. Patients and their caregivers can access their health record data fully in only two countries. Patients are able to fully add relevant data only in one country. Finland showed the best outcome of all eHealth indicators, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Advancement in eHealth depends on contextual factors such as health care organization, national health politics, privacy laws, and health care financing. Improvements in eHealth indicators are thus often slow. However, our survey shows that some countries were able to improve on at least some indicators between 2017 and 2019. We anticipate further improvements in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":49822,"journal":{"name":"Methods of Information in Medicine","volume":"59 S 02","pages":"e46-e63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1715796","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Comparison of Six Basic eHealth Indicators Across 14 Countries: An eHealth Benchmarking Study.\",\"authors\":\"Elske Ammenwerth, Georg Duftschmid, Zaid Al-Hamdan, Hala Bawadi, Ngai T Cheung, Kyung-Hee Cho, Guillermo Goldfarb, Kemal H Gülkesen, Nissim Harel, Michio Kimura, Önder Kırca, Hiroshi Kondoh, Sabine Koch, Hadas Lewy, Dara Mize, Sari Palojoki, Hyeoun-Ae Park, Christopher Pearce, Fernan G B de Quirós, Kaija Saranto, Christoph Seidel, Vivian Vimarlund, Martin C Were, Johanna Westbrook, Chung P Wong, Reinhold Haux, Christoph U Lehmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0040-1715796\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many countries adopt eHealth applications to support patient-centered care. Through information exchange, these eHealth applications may overcome institutional data silos and support holistic and ubiquitous (regional or national) information logistics. Available eHealth indicators mostly describe usage and acceptance of eHealth in a country. The eHealth indicators focusing on the cross-institutional availability of patient-related information for health care professionals, patients, and care givers are rare.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to present eHealth indicators on cross-institutional availability of relevant patient data for health care professionals, as well as for patients and their caregivers across 14 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States) to compare our indicators and the resulting data for the examined countries with other eHealth benchmarks and to extend and explore changes to a comparable survey in 2017. We defined \\\"availability of patient data\\\" as the ability to access data in and to add data to the patient record in the respective country.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The invited experts from each of the 14 countries provided the indicator data for their country to reflect the situation on August 1, 2019, as date of reference. Overall, 60 items were aggregated to six eHealth indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Availability of patient-related information varies strongly by country. Health care professionals can access patients' most relevant cross-institutional health record data fully in only four countries. Patients and their caregivers can access their health record data fully in only two countries. Patients are able to fully add relevant data only in one country. Finland showed the best outcome of all eHealth indicators, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Advancement in eHealth depends on contextual factors such as health care organization, national health politics, privacy laws, and health care financing. Improvements in eHealth indicators are thus often slow. However, our survey shows that some countries were able to improve on at least some indicators between 2017 and 2019. We anticipate further improvements in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Methods of Information in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"59 S 02\",\"pages\":\"e46-e63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1715796\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Methods of Information in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715796\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/11/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods of Information in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715796","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
International Comparison of Six Basic eHealth Indicators Across 14 Countries: An eHealth Benchmarking Study.
Background: Many countries adopt eHealth applications to support patient-centered care. Through information exchange, these eHealth applications may overcome institutional data silos and support holistic and ubiquitous (regional or national) information logistics. Available eHealth indicators mostly describe usage and acceptance of eHealth in a country. The eHealth indicators focusing on the cross-institutional availability of patient-related information for health care professionals, patients, and care givers are rare.
Objectives: This study aims to present eHealth indicators on cross-institutional availability of relevant patient data for health care professionals, as well as for patients and their caregivers across 14 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States) to compare our indicators and the resulting data for the examined countries with other eHealth benchmarks and to extend and explore changes to a comparable survey in 2017. We defined "availability of patient data" as the ability to access data in and to add data to the patient record in the respective country.
Methods: The invited experts from each of the 14 countries provided the indicator data for their country to reflect the situation on August 1, 2019, as date of reference. Overall, 60 items were aggregated to six eHealth indicators.
Results: Availability of patient-related information varies strongly by country. Health care professionals can access patients' most relevant cross-institutional health record data fully in only four countries. Patients and their caregivers can access their health record data fully in only two countries. Patients are able to fully add relevant data only in one country. Finland showed the best outcome of all eHealth indicators, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden.
Conclusion: Advancement in eHealth depends on contextual factors such as health care organization, national health politics, privacy laws, and health care financing. Improvements in eHealth indicators are thus often slow. However, our survey shows that some countries were able to improve on at least some indicators between 2017 and 2019. We anticipate further improvements in the future.
期刊介绍:
Good medicine and good healthcare demand good information. Since the journal''s founding in 1962, Methods of Information in Medicine has stressed the methodology and scientific fundamentals of organizing, representing and analyzing data, information and knowledge in biomedicine and health care. Covering publications in the fields of biomedical and health informatics, medical biometry, and epidemiology, the journal publishes original papers, reviews, reports, opinion papers, editorials, and letters to the editor. From time to time, the journal publishes articles on particular focus themes as part of a journal''s issue.