Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Systematic review

Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update)

Authors: Jamie Ross, Fiona Stevenson, Rosa Lau, Elizabeth Murray

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is a significant potential for e-health to deliver cost-effective, quality health care, and spending on e-health systems by governments and healthcare systems is increasing worldwide. However, there remains a tension between the use of e-health in this way and implementation. Furthermore, the large body of reviews in the e-health implementation field, often based on one particular technology, setting or health condition make it difficult to access a comprehensive and comprehensible summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This review provides an update and re-analysis of a systematic review of the e-health implementation literature culminating in a set of accessible and usable recommendations for anyone involved or interested in the implementation of e-health.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2009 and 2014. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews of the implementation of e-health. Data from included studies were synthesised using the principles of meta-ethnography, and categorisation of the data was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Forty-four reviews mainly from North America and Europe were included. A range of e-health technologies including electronic medical records and clinical decision support systems were represented. Healthcare settings included primary care, secondary care and home care. Factors important for implementation were identified at the levels of the following: the individual e-health technology, the outer setting, the inner setting and the individual health professionals as well as the process of implementation.

Conclusion

This systematic review of reviews provides a synthesis of the literature that both acknowledges the multi-level complexity of e-health implementation and provides an accessible and useful guide for those planning implementation. New interpretations of a large amount of data across e-health systems and healthcare settings have been generated and synthesised into a set of useable recommendations for practice. This review provides a further empirical test of the CFIR and identifies areas where additional research is necessary.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42015017661
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Currie WL, Seddon JJ. A cross-national analysis of eHealth in the European Union: some policy and research directions. Inf Manage. 2014;51(6):783–97.CrossRef
2.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
van Gemert-Pijnen J, Wynchank S, Covvey H, Ossebaard H. Improving the credibility of electronic health technologies. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(5):323-A.CrossRef
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mair FS, May C, O'Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(5):357–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Exploring the challenges of implementing e-health: a protocol for an update of a systematic review of reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e006773.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Smith V, Devane D, Begley C, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed). 2009;339:b2700.CrossRef
13.
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage;1988.CrossRef
14.
Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252–60.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Adaji A, Schattner P, Jones K. The use of information technology to enhance diabetes management in primary care: a literature review. Inform Prim Care. 2008;16(3):229–37.PubMed
16.
17.
Benavides-Vaello S, Strode A, Sheeran BC. Using technology in the delivery of mental health and substance abuse treatment in rural communities: a review. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2013;40(1):111–20.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Boonstra A, Broekhuis M. Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Botsis T, Hartvigsen G. Current status and future perspectives in telecare for elderly people suffering from chronic diseases. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(4):195–203.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Broens TH, Huis in't Veld RM, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, Hermens HJ, van Halteren AT, Nieuwenhuis LJ. Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(6):303–9.
21.
Castillo VH, Martinez-Garcia AI, Pulido JR. A knowledge-based taxonomy of critical factors for adopting electronic health record systems by physicians: a systematic literature review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
23.
Fitzpatrick L, Melnikas A, Weathers M, Kachnowski S. Understanding communication capacity. Communication patterns and ICT usage in clinical settings. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2007;22(3):34–41.
24.
Fontaine P, Ross SE, Zink T, Schilling LM. Systematic review of health information exchange in primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(5):655–70.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, Car J, Pagliari C, Pluye P, et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst. 2012;36(1):241–77.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Gagnon MP, Legare F, Labrecque M, Fremont P, Pluye P, Gagnon J, Car J, et al. Interventions for promoting information and communication technologies adoption in healthcare professionals (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD006093.
27.
Gagnon M-P, Nsangou E-R, Payne-Gagnon J, Grenier S, Sicotte C. Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups' perceptions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(3):535–41.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Goldstein DH, Phelan R, Wilson R, Ross-White A, VanDenKerkhof EG, Penning JP, et al. Brief review: adoption of electronic medical records to enhance acute pain management. Can J Anesth. 2014;61(2):164–79.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Gruber D, Cummings GG, Leblanc L, Smith DL. Factors influencing outcomes of clinical information systems implementation: a systematic review. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27(3):151–63.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Hsieh CT, Lin B. Information technology for competitive advantage: the case of learning and innovation in behavioural healthcare service. Int J Electron Healthc. 2011;6(2-4):213–28.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Jarvis-Selinger S, Chan E, Payne R, Plohman K, Ho K. Clinical telehealth across the disciplines: lessons learned. Telemed e-Health. 2008;14(7):720–5.CrossRef
32.
Jennett PA, Gagnon MP, Brandstadt HK. Preparing for success: readiness models for rural telehealth. J Postgrad Med. 2005;51(4):279.PubMed
33.
Jennett PA, Scott RE, Affleck Hall L, Hailey D, Ohinmaa A, Anderson C, Thomas R, Young B, Lorenzetti D. Policy implications associated with the socioeconomic and health system impact of telehealth: a case study from Canada. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10(1):77–83.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kilsdonk E, Peute LW, Knijnenburg SL, Jaspers MW. Factors known to influence acceptance of clinical decision support systems. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:150–4.PubMed
35.
Kukafka R, Johnson SB, Linfante A, Allegrante JP. Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use. J Biomed Inform. 2003;36(3):218–27.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Lau F, Price M, Boyd J, Partridge C, Bell H, Raworth R. Impact of electronic medical record on physician practice in office settings: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Lluch M. Healthcare professionals' organisational barriers to health information technologies-a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(12):849–62.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Lu YC, Xiao Y, Sears A, Jacko JA. A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(5):409–22.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Ludwick DA, Doucette J. Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(1):22–31.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Mack EH, Wheeler DS, Embi PJ. Clinical decision support systems in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatric Crit Care Med. 2009;10(1):23–8.CrossRef
41.
McGinn CA, Grenier S, Duplantie J, Shaw N, Sicotte C, Mathieu L, et al. Comparison of user groups’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2011;9:46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Mollon B, Chong JJ, Holbrook AM, Sung M, Thabane L, Foster G. Features predicting the success of computerized decision support for prescribing: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009;9(1):11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Moxey A, Robertson J, Newby D, Hains I, Williamson M, Pearson SA. Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(1):25–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Ohinmaa A. What lessons can be learned from telemedicine programmes in other countries? J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12 suppl 2:40–4.CrossRef
45.
Oluoch T, Santas X, Kwaro D, Were M, Biondich P, Bailey C, et al. The effect of electronic medical record-based clinical decision support on HIV care in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(10):e83–92.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Oroviogoicoechea C, Elliott B, Watson R. Review: evaluating information systems in nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(5):567–75.CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
Peleg M, Tu S. Decision support, knowledge representation and management in medicine. Yearbook Med Inform. 2006:72–80.
49.
Police RL, Foster T, Wong KS. Adoption and use of health information technology in physician practice organisations: systematic review. Inform Prim Care. 2010;18(4):245–58.PubMed
50.
Rahimi B, Vimarlund V, Timpka T. Health information system implementation: a qualitative meta-analysis. J Med Syst. 2009;33(5):359–68.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Saliba V, Legido-Quigley H, Hallik R, Aaviksoo A, Car J, McKee M. Telemedicine across borders: a systematic review of factors that hinder or support implementation. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(12):793–809.CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
Stolee P, Steeves B, Glenny C, Filsinger S. The use of electronic health information systems in home care: facilitators and barriers. Home Healthc Nurse. 2010;28(3):167–79.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Studer M. The effect of organizational factors on the effectiveness of EMR system implementation—what have we learned? Healthc Q. 2005;8(4):92–8.PubMed
55.
Vreeman DJ, Taggard SL, Rhine MD, Worrell TW. Evidence for electronic health record systems in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86(3):434–46.PubMed
56.
Waneka R, Spetz J. Hospital information technology systems' impact on nurses and nursing care. J Nurs Adm. 2010;40(12):509–14.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Yarbrough AK, Smith TB. Technology acceptance among physicians: a new take on TAM. Medical Care Research and Review. 2007;64(6):650–72.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Yusof MM, Stergioulas L, Zugic J. Health information systems adoption: findings from a systematic review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(1):262.PubMed
59.
Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res. 2004;19(4):440–6.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, Dziedzic K, Treweek S, Eldridge S, et al. Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):1–39.
61.
Atkinson NL, Massett HA, Mylks C, McCormack LA, Kish-Doto J, Hesse BW, et al. Assessing the impact of user-centered research on a clinical trial eHealth tool via counterbalanced research design. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(1):24–31.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update)
Authors
Jamie Ross
Fiona Stevenson
Rosa Lau
Elizabeth Murray
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Effects of computer reminders on complications of peripheral venous catheters and nurses’ adherence to a guideline in paediatric care—a cluster randomised study

Methodology

Applying the COM-B model to creation of an IT-enabled health coaching and resource linkage program for low-income Latina moms with recent gestational diabetes: the STAR MAMA program

Research

Building capacity in implementation science research training at the University of Nairobi

Study protocol

Study protocol: realist evaluation of effectiveness and sustainability of a community health workers programme in improving maternal and child health in Nigeria

Study protocol

Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21)

Research

Implementing a social network intervention designed to enhance and diversify support for people with long-term conditions. A qualitative study