SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021
The Challenge of Integrating eHealth Into Health Care: Systematic Literature Review of the Donabedian Model of Structure, Process, and Outcome.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
85 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pharmacist input to depression screening and management in patients with diabetes: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Pooled it
- Developing and validating key performance indicators for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs: a literature review and Delphi survey.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding the Integrated Health Management System Policy in China From Multiple Perspectives: Systematic Review and Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- The web-based Pleasure&Pregnancy programme in the treatment of unexplained infertility: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Trial
- The AI-Driven Healthcare Value Framework-Rethinking Traditional Care Models in the Age of Automation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Multidimensional Digital Health Platform to Support Intrinsic Capacity and Healthy Aging: Pilot Feasibility Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Maternal Satisfaction With Delivery Services and Associated Factors at Public Health Centers in Horro Guduru Wollega Zone 2024: Institutional-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- A qualitative approach to applying virtual reality relaxation for patients with psychiatric problems: Focus group study with healthcare professionals.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Hybrid Care Modifications in the Delivery of Nonpandemic Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Facilitators of and Barriers to Global Digital Oral Health: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Digital Governance at the Street Level: A Mixed-Methods Study of Systemic Resilience and 'Human-in-the-Loop' Telemedicine in Rural Thailand.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Stop play: key takeaways on physical safety awareness in healthcare simulation education.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Quality Challenges in Municipal Telecare Call Center Services: Qualitative Evaluation Using the Anchored, Realistic, Cocreated, Human, Integrated, and Evaluated (ARCHIE) Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Systematic Review of Barriers Faced by Residents Underrepresented in Medicine: a Donabedian Framework Analysis.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Implementation of a Mobile Health App to Support Dutch Primary Care for Diabetes: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Construction of an index system for workplace services by family doctors in China: a two-round Delphi study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- A Digital Alert Feedback System (Aged Care Electronic Dashboard Information Tool, ACED-IT) to Enhance Quality Nursing Care: Participatory Action Research.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- An Exploration of Nurse Managers' Understanding and Experiences of Using Evidence-Informed Management in a Healthcare Facility in the United Arab Emirates: A Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of traditional Chinese medicine health management services in Urban versus rural areas of Chongqing: implications for policy and practice.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- [Construction of the evaluation index system for nursing quality management in outpatient dental clinics based on the structure-process-outcome model].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025Article
25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth care organizations are increasingly working with eHealth. However, the integration of eHealth into regular health care is challenging. It requires organizations to change the way they work and their structure and care processes to be adapted to ensure that eHealth supports the attainment of the desired outcomes.
objectiveThe aims of this study are to investigate whether there are identifiable indicators in the structure, process, and outcome categories that are related to the successful integration of eHealth in regular health care, as well as to investigate which indicators of structure and process are related to outcome indicators.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome (SPO) framework to identify indicators that are related to the integration of eHealth into health care organizations. Data extraction sheets were designed to provide an overview of the study characteristics, eHealth characteristics, and indicators. The extracted indicators were organized into themes and subthemes of the structure, process, and outcome categories.
resultsEleven studies were included, covering a variety of study designs, diseases, and eHealth tools. All studies identified structure, process, and outcome indicators that were potentially related to the integration of eHealth. The number of indicators found in the structure, process, and outcome categories was 175, 84, and 88, respectively. The themes with the most-noted indicators and their mutual interaction were inner setting (51 indicators, 16 interactions), care receiver (40 indicators, 11 interactions), and technology (38 indicators, 12 interactions)-all within the structure category; health care actions (38 indicators, 15 interactions) within the process category; and efficiency (30 indicators, 15 interactions) within the outcome category. In-depth examination identified four most-reported indicators, namely "deployment of human resources" (n=11), in the inner setting theme within the structure category; "ease of use" (n=16) and "technical issue" (n=10), both in the technology theme within the structure category; and "health logistics" (n=26), in the efficiency theme within the outcome category.
conclusionsThree principles are important for the successful integration of eHealth into health care. First, the role of the care receiver needs to be incorporated into the organizational structure and daily care process. Second, the technology must be well attuned to the organizational structure and daily care process. Third, the deployment of human resources to the daily care processes needs to be aligned with the desired end results. Not adhering to these points could negatively affect the organization, daily process, or the end results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.