Download PDF
Yearb Med Inform 2013; 22(01): 59-63
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1638833
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

eHealth in Europe – Status and Challenges

A. Moen
1   Institute for Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway
,
W. O. Hackl
2   UMIT, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Austria
,
J. Hofdijk
3   CaseMix, the Netherlands
,
L. Van Gemert-Pijnen
4   University of Twente, the Netherlands
,
E. Ammenwerth
2   UMIT, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Austria
,
P. Nykänen
1   Institute for Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway
,
A. Hoerbst
2   UMIT, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: To present European reflections on the concept of eHealth and emerging challenges related to further development of eHealth in Europe.

Methods: A survey with 10 questions was distributed to representatives of the national member associations of the European Federation of Medical Informatics (EFMI).

Results: The results document a shift from a constricting ICT-orientation to development of the entire health system where eHealth strategies, organizational change, and appropriate technological infrastructure are singled out as important aspects.

Conclusion: There are urgent needs to ensure that eHealth strategies and policies for further design and deployment of eHealth applications support sociable services and innovations in health care.

Keywords

eHealth - status and challenges - Europe - survey
 

  • References

  • 1 Haux R. Medical informatics: Past, present, future. Int J Med Inf. 2010 79. (599).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rigby M, Brender J, Beuscart-Zephir M, Hyppönen H, Nykänen P, Talmon J. et al. Next Steps in Evaluation and Evidence — from Generic to Context-Related. pp. 208-212 In: Moen A. et al editor User-centred Networked Care. IOS Press; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 3 van Gemert-Pijnen J, Nijland N, Van Limburg M, Ossebaard H, Kelders S, Eysenbach G. et al. A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Stroetmann KA, Altmann J, Stroetmann VN, Protti D, Dumortier J, Giest S. et al. European countries on their journey to national eHealth infrastructures. Final Strategic Progress Report. Berlin, Germany: Empirica; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Andreassen HK, Sorensen T, Kummervold PE. eHealth trends actoss Europe 2005-2007. Tromso: National Center for Collaborative care and Telemedicine; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Moen A, Andersen SK, Aarts J, Hurlen P. editors. User Centred Networked Health Care. IOS Press; 2011
  • 7 Andersen SK, Klein G, Schulz S, Aarts J, Maz-zoleni MC. editors eHealth Beyond the Horizon — Get IT There. IOS press; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Nohr C, Aarts J. editors. Information Technology in Health Care: Socio-Technical Approaches 2010. From Safe Systems to Patient Safety. IOS Press; 2010
  • 9 Blobel B, Hvannberg E, Gunnarsdottir V. editors. Seamless Care — Safe Care, The Challenges of nteroperability and Patient Safety in Health Care. IOS Press; 2010
  • 10 Stoicu-Tivadar L, Blobel B, Marcun T, Orel A. editors. e-Health Across Borders Without Boundaries. E-salus trans confinia sine finibus. IOS Press; 2011
  • 11 van Limburg M, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Nijland N, Ossebaard HC, Hendrix RMG, Seydel ER. Why Business Modelling is crucial in the development of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 11 (3) e41.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research (serial on the Internet). 2000 1. (2).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eysenbach G. What is e-health?. J Med Internet Res. 2001 3. (2) e20.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking. collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 10. (3).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hoerbst A, Kohl C, Knaup P, Ammenwerth E. Attitudes and behaviors related to the introduction of electronic health records among Austrian and German citizens. Int J Med Inform. 2010; 79 (2) 81-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 ASIP Sânte. The DMP: a project that is structuring the development of e-health in France. 2010 [cited 2011 Nov 3] Available from: http://esante.gouv.lr/en/dossiers/dmp-a-project-structuring-development-e-health-france
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hoerbst A, Ammenwerth E. Electronic health records. A systematic review on quality requirements. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (4) 320-36.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Machan C, Ammenwerth E, Schabetsberger T. Evaluation of the electronic transmission of medical findings from hospitals to practitioners by triangulation. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (2) 225-33.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pillai A, Thomas SS, Garg M. The electronic immediate discharge document: experience from the South West of Scotland. Inform Prim Care. 2004; 12 (2) 67-73.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hellström L, Waern K, Montelius E, Astrand B, Rydberg T, Petersson G. Physicians' attitudes towards ePrescribing--evaluation of a Swedish full-scale implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009; Aug(7) 9-37.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pagliari C, Donnan P, Morrison J, Ricketts I, Gregor P, Sullivan F. Adoption and perception of electronic clinical communications in Scotland. nform Prim Care 2005; 13 (2) 97-104.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Marthinsen PB, Hald J, Bergstrom R, Jakobsen J, Christensen D, Roterud H. et al. The multimedia, virtual MR imaging department, clinical aspects. Int J CARS. 2009; 3 (S1) 155-63.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Murgia F, Cilli M, Renzetti E, Popa N, Romano T, Alghisi F. et al. Economic evaluation of telehomecare in chronic lung diseases. Clin Ter 2011; 162 (2) e43-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sengpiel J, Fuehner T, Kugler C, Avsar M, Bodmann I, Boemke A. et al. Use of telehealth technology for home spirometry after lung transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. Prog Transplant 2010; 20 (4) 310-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Harno K, Ruotsalainen P. Sharable EHR systems in Finland. pp. 364-70 In Bos L. et al editors Medical and Care Compunetics 3. IOS Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Nijland N, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Boer H, Steehouder MF, ER S. Increasing the use of e-consultation in primary care: results of an online survey among non-users of e-consultation. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78 (10) 688-703.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ehlers L, Müskens WM, Jensen LG, Kjolby M. G. A. National use of thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke via telemedicine in Denmark: a model of budgetary impact and cost effectiveness. CNS Drugs 2008; 22 (1) 73-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pitsillides A, Samaras G, Pitsillides B, Georgiades D, Andreous P, Christodoulou E. DITIS: Virtual Collaborative Teams for Home Healthcare. J Mob Multimedia. 2006 2. (1).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tuil W, Verhaak C, Braat D, de Vries Robbe P, Kremer J. Empowering patients undergoing in vitro fertilization by providing Internet access to medical data. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (2) 361-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: e-Health-making health care better for European citizens: An action plan for a European e-Health Area. Brussels; 2004
    Google Scholar