Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Netherlands Heart Journal 1/2019

Open Access 01-01-2019 | Original Article

Expectations and perceived barriers to widespread implementation of e‑Health in cardiology practice: Results from a national survey in the Netherlands

Published in: Netherlands Heart Journal | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Expectations of physicians concerning e‑Health and perceived barriers to implementation in clinical practice are scarcely reported in the literature. The purpose of this study was to assess these aspects of cardiovascular e‑Health.

Methods

A survey was sent to members of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology. In total, the questionnaire contained 30 questions about five topics: personal use of smartphones, digital communication between respondents and patients, current e‑Health implementation in clinical practice, expectations about e‑Health and perceived barriers for e‑Health implementation. Age, personal use of smartphones and professional environment were noted as baseline characteristics.

Results

In total, 255 respondents filled out the questionnaire (response rate 25%); 89.4% of respondents indicated that they considered e‑Health to be clinically beneficial, improving patient satisfaction (90.2%), but also that it will increase the workload (83.9%). Age was a negative predictor and personal use of smartphones was a positive predictor of having high expectations. Lack of reimbursement was identified by 66.7% of respondents as a barrier to e‑Health implementation, as well as a lack of reliable devices (52.9%) and a lack of data integration with electronic medical records (EMRs) (69.4%).

Conclusion

Cardiologists are in general positive about the possibilities of e‑Health implementation in routine clinical care; however, they identify deficient data integration into the EMR, reimbursement issues and lack of reliable devices as major barriers. Age and personal use of smartphones are predictors of expectations of e‑Health, but the professional working environment is not.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:742–52.CrossRef Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:742–52.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ruiz Morilla MD, Sans M, Casasa A, Gimenez N. Implementing technology in healthcare: insights from physicians. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017;17:92. Ruiz Morilla MD, Sans M, Casasa A, Gimenez N. Implementing technology in healthcare: insights from physicians. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017;17:92.
4.
go back to reference Furman S, Escher D. Transtelephone pacemaker monitoring. In: Schaldach, Furman. Advances in Pacemaker Technology. Berlin: Springer; 1975. Furman S, Escher D. Transtelephone pacemaker monitoring. In: Schaldach, Furman. Advances in Pacemaker Technology. Berlin: Springer; 1975.
5.
go back to reference Heidbuchel H, Lioen P, Foulon S, et al. Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace. 2008;10:351–7.CrossRef Heidbuchel H, Lioen P, Foulon S, et al. Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace. 2008;10:351–7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, et al. Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2591–600.CrossRef Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, et al. Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2591–600.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kumar N, Khunger M, Gupta A, Garg N. A content analysis of smartphone-based applications for hypertension management. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2015;9:130–6.CrossRef Kumar N, Khunger M, Gupta A, Garg N. A content analysis of smartphone-based applications for hypertension management. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2015;9:130–6.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Treskes RW, van der Velde ET, Barendse R, Bruining N. Mobile health in cardiology: a review of currently available medical apps and equipment for remote monitoring. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13:823–30.CrossRef Treskes RW, van der Velde ET, Barendse R, Bruining N. Mobile health in cardiology: a review of currently available medical apps and equipment for remote monitoring. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13:823–30.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Treskes RW, van Winden LA, van Keulen N, et al. Using Smart Technology to Improve Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction Patients: Rationale and Design of a Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial, The Box. Jmir Res Protoc. 2017;6:e186.CrossRef Treskes RW, van Winden LA, van Keulen N, et al. Using Smart Technology to Improve Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction Patients: Rationale and Design of a Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial, The Box. Jmir Res Protoc. 2017;6:e186.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Wicks P, Chiauzzi E. ‘Trust but verify’—five approaches to ensure safe medical apps. Bmc Med. 2015;13:205.CrossRef Wicks P, Chiauzzi E. ‘Trust but verify’—five approaches to ensure safe medical apps. Bmc Med. 2015;13:205.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Number of mHealth apps available in the Apple App Store from 2nd quarter 2015 to 4th quarter 2017 2018 [cited 2018 March 30th]. Available from: Number of mHealth apps available in the Apple App Store from 2nd quarter 2015 to 4th quarter 2017. Number of mHealth apps available in the Apple App Store from 2nd quarter 2015 to 4th quarter 2017 2018 [cited 2018 March 30th]. Available from: Number of mHealth apps available in the Apple App Store from 2nd quarter 2015 to 4th quarter 2017.
14.
go back to reference De Simone A, Leoni L, Luzi M, et al. Remote monitoring improves outcome after ICD implantation: the clinical efficacy in the management of heart failure (EFFECT) study. Europace. 2015;17:1267–75.CrossRef De Simone A, Leoni L, Luzi M, et al. Remote monitoring improves outcome after ICD implantation: the clinical efficacy in the management of heart failure (EFFECT) study. Europace. 2015;17:1267–75.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Treskes RW, Van Der Velde ET, Atsma DE, Schalij MJ. Redesigning healthcare: The 2.4 billion euro question? : Connecting smart technology to improve outcome of patients. Neth Heart J. 2016;24:441–6.CrossRef Treskes RW, Van Der Velde ET, Atsma DE, Schalij MJ. Redesigning healthcare: The 2.4 billion euro question? : Connecting smart technology to improve outcome of patients. Neth Heart J. 2016;24:441–6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Expectations and perceived barriers to widespread implementation of e‑Health in cardiology practice: Results from a national survey in the Netherlands
Publication date
01-01-2019
Published in
Netherlands Heart Journal / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1568-5888
Electronic ISSN: 1876-6250
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-018-1199-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Netherlands Heart Journal 1/2019 Go to the issue