The impact of eHealth use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era: a systematic review

Abstract

Background In recent years, eHealth has received much attention as an opportunity to increase efficiency within healthcare organizations. Adoption of eHealth might consequently help to solve perceived health workforce challenges, including labor shortages and increasing workloads among primary care professionals, who serve as the first point of contact for healthcare in many countries. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of general eHealth use and specific eHealth services use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era. Methods The databases of CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, IEEE Xplore, Medline ALL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched, using combinations of keywords including ‘eHealth’, ‘workload’, and ‘general practice’. Data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies were independently performed by at least two reviewers. Publications were included for the period 2010 – 2020, before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results In total, 208 studies describing the impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload were identified. We found that two eHealth services were mainly investigated within this context, namely electronic health records and digital communication services, and that the largest share of the included studies used a qualitative study design. Overall, a small majority of the studies found that eHealth led to an increase in general practice workload. However, results differed between the various types of eHealth services, as a large share of the studies also reported a reduction or no change in workload. Conclusions The impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload is ambiguous. While a small majority of the effects indicated that eHealth increased workload in general practice, a large share of the effects also showed that eHealth use reduced workload or had no impact. These results do not imply a definitive conclusion, which underscores the need for further explanatory research. Various factors, including the study setting, system design, and the phase of implementation, may influence this impact and should be taken into account when general practices adopt new eHealth services. Study registration number PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020199897; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=199897.