The Impact of eHealth Applications In Healthcare Intervention: A Systematic Review

Authors

Fadly Syah Arsad, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Sharifah Saffinas Syed Soffian, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Puteri Sofia Nadira Megat Kamaruddin, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Nor Rumaizah Nordin, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Mohd Hafiz Baharudin, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Ummi Mirza Baharudin, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Mohd Rohaizat Hassan, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Azmawati Mohamed Nawi, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow
Norfazilah Ahmad, Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bandar Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFollow

Abstract

Background: Electronic health (eHealth) is the application of information communication technologies across all ranges of functions involved in the practice and delivery of health care. The rapid development of informatics and the Internet do not parallel eHealth interventions, and the knowledge gap needs to be explored. We aimed to identify and review the impact of eHealth applications (apps) on healthcare interventions.

Method: We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) review protocol and formulated the research question based on PICO (Population or Problem, Interest, Context). The selected databases were Ovid, Web Of Science, PubMed, SAGE and EBSCOhost. Following thorough identification, screening and eligibility evaluation, a total of 10 articles were included in this study. The articles were ranked according to quality with the MMAT (Mixed Method Appraisal Tool).

Results: The results were organized according to the benefits and issues among patients and health care workers. Standardized eHealth improved patient health literacy and aided disease self-management. eHealth provided cost-effective measures via online consultation, improved awareness and motivation to comply with treatment and with declaring clinical symptoms. Low socioeconomic status impeded the implementation of eHealth among patients due to the expensive equipment needed to access eHealth material. User-oriented content in eHealth apps was essential for good acceptance among patients.

Conclusion: Good implementation of eHealth is an effective alternative for addressing the healthcare needs of society through empowerment.

Keywords: eHealth literacy, telemedicine, delivery of health care, information technology, patient

Recommended Citation

Arsad F, Syed Soffian S, Megat Kamaruddin P, et al. The Impact of eHealth Applications In Healthcare Intervention: A Systematic Review. J Health Res. 2023; 37(3):178-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56808/2586-940X.1020

References

[1] A metadata vocabulary for self-and third-party labeling of health web-sites: health Information Disclosure, Description and Evaluation Language (HIDDEL). In: Eysenbach G, Kohler C, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D, editors. Proceedings of the AMIA symposium. American Medical Informatics Association; 2001.

[2] Silber D. The case for eHealth. European Institute of Public Administration Maastricht; 2003.

[3] Majumdar A, Kar SS, Ganesh Kumar S, Palanivel C, Misra P. mHealth in the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in India: current possibilities and the way forward. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(2):LE06.

[4] Abolade T, Durosinmi A. Telemedicine in Nigeria: a paradigm shift in healthcare delivery. 1935.

[5] Ahern DK, Kreslake JM, Phalen JM. What is eHealth (6): perspectives on the evolution of eHealth research. J Med Internet Res 2006;8(1):e4.

[6] Wantland DJ, Portillo CJ, Holzemer WL, Slaughter R, McGhee EM. The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Webbased interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(4):e40.

[7] Jacobs RJ, Lou JQ, Ownby RL, Caballero J. A systematic review of eHealth interventions to improve health literacy. Health Inf J 2016;22(2):81-98.

[8] Hong YA, Cho J. Assessment of eHealth behaviors in national surveys: a systematic review of instruments. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2018;25(12):1675-84.

[9] Hesse BW. Role of the internet in solving the last mile Problem in medicine. J Med Internet Res 2019;21(10):e16385.

[10] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e1000097.

[11] Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Base Healthc 2015;13(3):179-87.

[12] Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tunçalp O, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ global health 2019;4(Suppl 1).

[13] Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 2013;15(3):398-405.

[14] Clarke V, Lane C. Teaching thematic analysis: overcoming challenges and Developing strategies for effective learnina. Clarke & Virginia Braun; 2013.

[15] Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Registration of copyright; 2018. p. 1148552.

[16] Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24(3):459-67.

[17] Gulzar S, Khoja S, Sajwani A. Experience of nurses with using eHealth in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan: a qualitative study in primary and secondary healthcare. BMC Nurs 2013;12(1):1-6.

[18] Huygens MW, Vermeulen J, Swinkels IC, Friele RD, Van Schayck OC, De Witte LP. Expectations and needs of patients with a chronic disease toward self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16(1):232.

[19] Naszay M, Stockinger A, Jungwirth D, Haluza D, Naszay M, Stockinger A, et al. Digital age and the Public eHealth perspective: prevailing health app use among Austrian Internet users Digital age and the Public eHealth perspective. Prevailing health; 2017.

[20] Faccio F, Renzi C, Crico C, Kazantzaki E, Kondylakis H, Koumakis L, et al. Development of an eHealth tool for cancer patients: monitoring psycho-emotional aspects with the Family Resilience (FaRe) Questionnaire, vol. 12. ecancermedicalscience; 2018.

[21] Su JJ, Yu DSF. Effectiveness of eHealth cardiac rehabilitation on health outcomes of coronary heart disease patients: a randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2019;19(1):1-10.

[22] Peeters JM, Krijgsman JW, Brabers AE, De Jong JD, Friele RD. Use and uptake of ehealth in general practice: a cross-sectional survey and focus group study among health care users and general practitioners. JMIR Medical Informatics 2016;4(2):e11.

[23] Miyoshi NSB, De Azevedo-Marques JM, Alves D, De Azevedo- Marques PM. An eHealth platform for the support of a Brazilian regional network of mental health care (eHealth-Interop): development of an interoperability platform for mental care integration. JMIR Mental Health 2018;5(4):e10129.

[24] Athanasopoulou C, Valimaki M, Koutra K, Lottyniemi E, Bertsias A, Basta M, et al. Internet use, eHealth literacy and attitudes toward computer/internet among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a cross-sectional study in two distant European regions. BMC Med Inf Decis Making 2017;17(1):136.

[25] Stevenson J, Campbell Z, Webster A, Chow C, Campbell K, Lee V. eHealth interventions for people with chronic kidney disease (Protocol). 2016.

[26] Risling T, Martinez J, Young J, Thorp-Froslie N. Evaluating patient empowerment in association with eHealth technology: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2017;19(9):e329.

[27] Schiza EC, Neokleous KC, Petkov N, Schizas CN. A patient centered electronic health: eHealth system development. Technol Health Care 2015;23(4):509-22.

[28] Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res 2006;8(4):e27.

[29] Barello S, Triberti S, Graffigna G, Libreri C, Serino S, Hibbard J, et al. eHealth for patient engagement: a systematic review. Front Psychol 2016;6:2013.

[30] Plaete J, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Verloigne M, Crombez G. Acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of an eHealth behaviour intervention using self-regulation:‘MyPlan’. Patient Educ Counsel 2015;98(12):1617-24.

[31] Wang S, Blazer D, Hoenig H. Can eHealth technology enhance the patient-provider relationship in rehabilitation? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016;97(9):1403-6.

[32] Privacy aspects of ehealth. In: Slamanig D, Stingl C, editors. 2008 Third international conference on availability, Reliability and Security. IEEE; 2008.

[33] Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 2011; 8(1):e1000387.