BackgroundThe field of eHealth has a history of more than 20 years. During that time, many different eHealth services were developed. However, factors influencing the adoption of such services were seldom the main focus of analyses. For this reason, organizations adopting and implementing eHealth services seem not to be fully aware of the barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of eHealth services into routine care.ObjectiveThe objective of this work is to provide (1) a comprehensive list of relevant barriers to be considered and (2) a list of facilitators or success factors to help in planning and implementing successful eHealth services.MethodsFor this study, a twofold approach was applied. First, we gathered experts’ current opinions on facilitators and barriers in implementing eHealth services via expert discussions at two health informatics conferences held in Europe. Second, we conducted a systematic literature analysis concerning the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of eHealth services. Finally, we merged the results of the expert discussions with those of the systematic literature analysis.ResultsBoth expert discussions (23 and 10 experts, respectively) identified 15 barriers and 31 facilitators, whereas 76 barriers and 268 facilitators were found in 38 of the initial 56 articles published from 12 different countries. For the analyzed publications, the count of distinct barriers reported ranged from 0 to 40 (mean 10.24, SD 8.87, median 8). Likewise, between 0 and 48 facilitators were mentioned in the literature (mean 9.18, SD 9.33, median 6). The combination of both sources resulted in 77 barriers and 292 facilitators for the adoption and implementation of eHealth services.ConclusionsThis work contributes a comprehensive list of barriers and facilitators for the implementation and adoption of eHealth services. Addressing barriers early, and leveraging facilitators during the implementation, can help create eHealth services that better meet the needs of users and provide higher benefits for patients and caregivers.

Summary Introduction: This article is part of the Focus Theme of Methods of Information in Medicine on the German Medical Informatics Initiative. HiGHmed brings together 24 partners from academia and industry, aiming at improvements in care provision, biomedical research and epidemiology. By establishing a shared information governance framework, data integration centers and an open platform architecture in cooperation with independent healthcare providers, the meaningful reuse of data will be facilitated. Complementary, HiGHmed integrates a total of seven Medical Informatics curricula to develop collaborative structures and processes to train medical informatics professionals, physicians and researchers in new forms of data analytics. Governance and Policies: We describe governance structures and policies that have proven effective during the conceptual phase. These were further adapted to take into account the specific needs of the development and networking phase, such as roll-out, carerelated aspects and our focus on curricula development in Medical Inform atics. Architectural Framework and Methodology: To address the challenges of organizational, technical and semantic interoperability, a concept for a scalable platform architecture, the HiGHmed Platform, was developed. We outline the basic principles and design goals of the open platform approach as well as the roles of standards and specifications such as IHE XDS, openEHR, SNOMED CT and HL7 FHIR. A shared governance framework provides the semantic artifacts which are needed to establish semantic interoperability. Use Cases: Three use cases in the fields of oncology, cardiology and infection control will demonstrate the capabilities of the HiGHmed approach. Each of the use cases entails diverse challenges in terms of data protection, privacy and security, including clinical use of genome sequencing data (oncology), continuous longitudinal monitoring of physical activity (cardiology) and cross-site analysis of patient movement data (infection control). Discussion: Besides the need for a shared governance framework and a technical infrastructure, backing from clinical leaders is a crucial factor. Moreover, firm and sustainable commitment by participating organizations to collaborate in further development of their information system architectures is needed. Other challenges including topics such as data quality, privacy regulations, and patient consent will be addressed throughout the project.

BackgroundComputerized clinical trial recruitment support is one promising field for the application of routine care data for clinical research. The primary task here is to compare the eligibility criteria defined in trial protocols with patient data contained in the electronic health record (EHR). To avoid the implementation of different patient definitions in multi-site trials, all participating research sites should use similar patient data from the EHR. Knowledge of the EHR data elements which are commonly available from most EHRs is required to be able to define a common set of criteria. The objective of this research is to determine for five tertiary care providers the extent of available data compared with the eligibility criteria of randomly selected clinical trials.MethodsEach participating study site selected three clinical trials at random. All eligibility criteria sentences were broken up into independent patient characteristics, which were then assigned to one of the 27 semantic categories for eligibility criteria developed by Luo et al. We report on the fraction of patient characteristics with corresponding structured data elements in the EHR and on the fraction of patients with available data for these elements. The completeness of EHR data for the purpose of patient recruitment is calculated for each semantic group.Results351 eligibility criteria from 15 clinical trials contained 706 patient characteristics. In average, 55% of these characteristics could be documented in the EHR. Clinical data was available for 64% of all patients, if corresponding data elements were available. The total completeness of EHR data for recruitment purposes is 35%. The best performing semantic groups were ‘age’ (89%), ‘gender’ (89%), ‘addictive behaviour’ (74%), ‘disease, symptom and sign’ (64%) and ‘organ or tissue status’ (61%). No data was available for 6 semantic groups.ConclusionsThere exists a significant gap in structure and content between data documented during patient care and data required for patient eligibility assessment. Nevertheless, EHR data on age and gender of the patient, as well as selected information on his disease can be complete enough to allow for an effective support of the manual screening process with an intelligent preselection of patients and patient data.

Cross-sectoral cancer care is complex and involves collaboration from health care professionals (HCPs) across multiple sectors. However, when health information exchange (HIE) is not adequate, it results in impeded coordination and continuity of care. A web-based personal electronic health record (PEPA) under patients' control, providing access to personal health data across sectors, is being developed. Aim of this study was to explore perceived benefits and concerns. Using a qualitative approach, 10 focus groups were performed collecting views of three prospective user groups: patients with colorectal cancer (n = 12), physicians (n = 17) and other HCPs (n = 16). Representatives from different health sectors across the Rhine-Neckar region (Germany) participated. Data were audio- and videotaped, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Our study shows that patients and HCPs expected a PEPA to enhance cross-sectoral availability of information, cross-sectoral cooperation and facilitate data management. Quality of cancer care was expected to be improved. Concerns were expressed in terms of data protection and data security. Concepts like a PEPA offer the chance to support HIE and avoid gaps of information in cross-sectoral cancer care. This may lead to improvements in coordination and continuity of care. Issues concerning data security and protection have to be addressed.