eHealth implementation in Europe: a scoping review on legal, ethical, financial, and technological aspects.

Background: The evolution of eHealth development has shifted from standalone tools to comprehensive digital health environments, fostering data exchange among diverse stakeholders and systems. Nevertheless, existing research and implementation frameworks have primarily emphasized technological and organizational aspects of eHealth implementation, overlooking the intricate legal, ethical, and financial considerations. It is essential to discover what legal, ethical, financial, and technological challenges should be considered to ensure successful and sustainable implementation of eHealth. Objective: This review aims to provide insights into barriers and facilitators of legal, ethical, financial, and technological aspects for successful implementation of complex eHealth technologies, which impacts multiple levels and multiple stakeholders. Methods: A scoping review was conducted by querying PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ACM Digital Library (2018-2023) for studies describing the implementation process of eHealth technologies that facilitate data exchange. Studies solely reporting clinical outcomes or conducted outside Europe were excluded. Two independent reviewers selected the studies. A conceptual framework was constructed through axial and inductive coding, extracting data from literature on legal, ethical, financial, and technological aspects of eHealth implementation. This framework guided systematic extraction and interpretation. Results: The search resulted in 7.308 studies that were screened for eligibility, of which 35 (0.48%) were included. Legal barriers revolve around data confidentiality and security, necessitating clear regulatory guidelines. Ethical barriers span consent, responsibility, liability, and validation complexities, necessitating robust frameworks. Financial barriers stem from inadequate funding, requiring (commercial) partnerships and business models. Technological issues include interoperability, integration, and malfunctioning, necessitating strategies for enhancing data reliability, improving accessibility, and aligning eHealth technology with existing systems for smoother integration. Conclusions: This research highlights the multifaceted nature of eHealth implementation, encompassing legal, ethical, financial, and technological considerations. Collaborative stakeholder engagement is paramount for effective decision-making and aligns with the transition from standalone eHealth tools to integrated digital health environments. Identifying suitable stakeholders and recognizing their stakes and values enriches implementation strategies with expertise and guidance across all aspects. Future research should explore the timing of these considerations and practical solutions for regulatory compliance, funding, navigation of responsibility and liability, and business models for reimbursement strategies.

Implementation and User Evaluation of an eHealth Technology Platform Supporting Patients With Cardiovascular Disease in Managing Their Health After a Cardiac Event: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: eHealth technology can help patients with cardiovascular disease adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle by supporting self-management and offering guidance, coaching, and tailored information. However, to support patients over time, eHealth needs to blend in with their needs, treatment, and daily lives. Just as needs can differ between patients, needs can change within patients over time. To better adapt technology features to patients' needs, it is necessary to account for these changes in needs and contexts of use. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and monitor patients' needs for support from a web-based health management platform and how these needs change over time. It aimed to answer the following research questions: "How do novice and more advanced users experience an online health management platform?" "What user expectations support or hinder the adoption of an online health management platform, from a user perspective?" and "How does actual usage relate to user experiences and adoption?" METHODS: A mixed methods design was adopted. The first method involved 2 rounds of usability testing, followed by interviews, with 10 patients at 0 months (round 1) and 12 patients at 6 months (round 2). In the second method, log data were collected to describe the actual platform use. RESULTS: After starting cardiac rehabilitation, the platform was used frequently. The patients mentioned that they need to have an incentive, set goals, self-monitor their health data, and feel empowered by the platform. However, soon after the rehabilitation program stopped, use of the platform declined or patients even quit because of the lack of continued tailored or personalized advice. The reward system motivated them to log data, but most participants indicated that being healthy should be the main focus, not receiving gifts. A web-based platform is flexible, accessible, and does not have any obligations; however, it should be implemented as an addition to regular care. CONCLUSIONS: Although use of the platform declined in the longer term, patients quitting the technology did not directly indicate that the technology was not functioning well or that patients no longer focused on achieving their values. The key to success should not be user adherence to a platform but adherence to healthy lifestyle habits. Therefore, the implementation of eHealth should include the transition to a stage where patients might no longer need support from a technology platform to be independently and sustainably adherent to their healthy lifestyle habits. This emphasizes the importance of conducting multi-iterative evaluations to continuously monitor whether and how patients' needs and contexts of use change over time. Future research should focus on how this transition can be identified and monitored and how these insights can inform the design and implementation of the technology.

Improving the Development and Implementation of Audit and Feedback Systems to Support Health Care Workers in Limiting Antimicrobial Resistance in the Hospital: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: For eHealth technologies in general and audit and feedback (AF) systems specifically, integrating interdisciplinary theoretical underpinnings is essential, as it increases the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes by ensuring a fit among eHealth technology, stakeholders, and their context. In addition, reporting on the development and implementation process of AF systems, including substantiations of choices, enables the identification of best practices and accumulation of knowledge across studies but is often not elaborated on in publications. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to provide insights into the development and implementation strategies for AF systems for a real-world problem that threatens modern health care-antimicrobial resistance-and provide an interdisciplinary conceptual framework that can serve as a checklist and guidance for making informed choices in the development and implementation of future AF systems. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by querying PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Embase (≥2010) for studies describing either the development or implementation process, or both, of an AF system for antimicrobial resistance or infections in hospitals. Studies reporting only on effectiveness or impact were excluded. A total of 3 independent reviewers performed the study selection, and 2 reviewers constructed the conceptual framework through the axial and selective coding of often-used theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) from the literature on AF and eHealth development and implementation. Subsequently, the conceptual framework was used for the systematic extraction and interpretation of the studies' descriptions of AF systems and their development and implementation. RESULTS: The search resulted in 2125 studies that were screened for eligibility, of which 12 (0.56%); 2012-2020) were included. These studies described the development and implementation processes heterogeneously in terms of study aims, study targets, target groups, methods, and theoretical underpinnings. Few studies have explicitly explained how choices for the development and implementation of AF systems were substantiated by the TMFs. The conceptual framework provided insights into what is reported on the development and implementation process and revealed underreported AF system constructs (eg, AF system design; engagement with the AF system; and comparison, goal setting, and action planning) and development and implementation (eg, champions) constructs. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review showed the current heterogeneous reporting of AF systems and their development and implementation processes and exemplified how interdisciplinary TMFs can (and should) be balanced in a conceptual framework to capture relevant AF systems and development and implementation constructs. Thereby, it provides a concrete checklist and overall guidance that supports the professionalization and harmonization of AF system development and implementation. For the development and implementation of future AF systems and other eHealth technologies, researchers and health care workers should be supported in selecting and integrating TMFs into their development and implementation process and encouraged to explicitly report on theoretical underpinnings and the substantiation of choices.

Values of Importance to Patients With Cardiovascular Disease as a Foundation for eHealth Design and Evaluation: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: eHealth interventions are developed to support and facilitate patients with lifestyle changes and self-care tasks after being diagnosed with a cardiovascular disease (CVD). Creating long-lasting effects on lifestyle change and health outcomes with eHealth interventions is challenging and requires good understanding of patient values. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify values of importance to patients with CVD to aid in designing a technological lifestyle platform. METHODS: A mixed method design was applied, combining data from usability testing with an additional online survey study, to validate the outcomes of the usability tests. RESULTS: A total of 11 relevant patient values were identified, including the need for security, support, not wanting to feel anxious, tailoring of treatment, and personalized, accessible care. The validation survey shows that all values but one (value 9: To have extrinsic motivation to accomplish goals or activities [related to health/lifestyle]) were regarded as important/very important. A rating of very unimportant or unimportant was given by less than 2% of the respondents (value 1: 4/641, 0.6%; value 2: 10/641, 1.6%; value 3: 9/641, 1.4%; value 4: 5/641, 0.8%; value 5: 10/641, 1.6%; value 6: 4/641, 0.6%; value 7: 10/639, 1.6%; value 8: 4/639, 0.6%; value 10: 3/636, 0.5%; value 11: 4/636, 0.6%) to all values except but one (value 9: 56/636, 8.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high consensus among patients regarding the identified values reflecting goals and themes central to their lives, while living with or managing their CVD. The identified values can serve as a foundation for future research to translate and integrate these values into the design of the eHealth technology. This may call for prioritization of values, as not all values can be met equally.