Pros and cons of eHealth: A systematic review of the literature and observations in Denmark

Abstract

Objectives: The main objectives of this article are to systematically review the recent literature on patient safety in relation to the use of eHealth and to investigate how the Danish authorities supervise private eHealth clinics with regard to patient safety. Methods: Original studies reporting the association between patient safety and the use of eHealth as a means of communication between patients and healthcare providers were included. Four literature databases were searched for English-language articles reporting results from cohort studies and clinical trials, published from 2015 until March 2021. Moreover, registered private eHealth clinics in Denmark were evaluated with reference to a recent national audit of patient safety issues in eHealth. Results: The literature search retrieved four intervention studies. The studies did not identify any particular patient safety risks associated with the use of eHealth. Many different authorized healthcare providers (preferably, doctors) apply eHealth in various contexts. eHealth is being used as the only form of contact between the healthcare provider and the patient, as a supplement to patient visitations in an outpatient clinic, or as a tool for communicating between two or more healthcare providers. The regulation of eHealth involves patient safety issues but also has interfaces to marketing, IT systems, and infrastructure. Supervision of eHealth includes the organization of clinics, handling patient charts, prescription medicine, patient legal rights, and patient transition. However, there are many interfaces in the division of responsibilities among the various governmental players. Conclusion: eHealth is being used increasingly and in many settings, although recently published intervention studies investigating patient safety issues by the use of eHealth are limited. A structured and continuous governmental control and regulation of patient safety in relation to the use of eHealth is warranted.

Facilitators and Barriers to the Sustainability of eHealth Solutions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Descriptive Exploratory Study

“…Previous studies revealed that analyzing the status of regulations at the time of eHealth implementation is important for eHealth solution sustainability [ 21 , 36 , 42 ]. Maintaining patient safety and privacy policies would also significantly contribute to the sustainability of eHealth solutions [ 15 , 43 ]. In our study findings, a lack of policies and legislation was noticed in all the study areas.…”

One-Year Remission Rate of Chronic Headache Comparing Video and Face-to-Face Consultations by Neurologist: Randomized Controlled Trial

“…In general, RCTs in eHealth are few despite occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic situation, which has demonstrated a need for more evidence-based knowledge about the use of digital health technology in evaluating treatment effect, safety, and other aspects of patient management [34][35][36][37]. Patient education programs [38,39]; evaluation of psychological distress using teletechnology in diabetes [40]; use of mobile in suboptimal health [41], surgery care, and follow-up [42][43][44]; aphasia [44]; HIV consultations [38]; cancer symptom monitoring [45]; motor and cognitive function in stroke [46]; and COVID-19 follow-up [47] are areas where RCTs are used.…”

The eHealth usage during COVID-19 pandemic 2020 year–Case of Poland

“…In recent years, a significant increase in the use of eHealth has been observed, to which restrictions on in-person practice associated with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have also contributed [1]. According to the World Health Organization eHealth means "the cost-effective and secure use of information and communications technologies in support of health and health-related fields, including health-care services, health surveillance, health literature, and health education, knowledge and research" [2,3].…”