↓ Skip to main content

Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update)

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 1,545)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
262 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
659 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update)
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie Ross, Fiona Stevenson, Rosa Lau, Elizabeth Murray

Abstract

There is a significant potential for e-health to deliver cost-effective, quality health care, and spending on e-health systems by governments and healthcare systems is increasing worldwide. However, there remains a tension between the use of e-health in this way and implementation. Furthermore, the large body of reviews in the e-health implementation field, often based on one particular technology, setting or health condition make it difficult to access a comprehensive and comprehensible summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This review provides an update and re-analysis of a systematic review of the e-health implementation literature culminating in a set of accessible and usable recommendations for anyone involved or interested in the implementation of e-health. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2009 and 2014. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews of the implementation of e-health. Data from included studies were synthesised using the principles of meta-ethnography, and categorisation of the data was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Forty-four reviews mainly from North America and Europe were included. A range of e-health technologies including electronic medical records and clinical decision support systems were represented. Healthcare settings included primary care, secondary care and home care. Factors important for implementation were identified at the levels of the following: the individual e-health technology, the outer setting, the inner setting and the individual health professionals as well as the process of implementation. This systematic review of reviews provides a synthesis of the literature that both acknowledges the multi-level complexity of e-health implementation and provides an accessible and useful guide for those planning implementation. New interpretations of a large amount of data across e-health systems and healthcare settings have been generated and synthesised into a set of useable recommendations for practice. This review provides a further empirical test of the CFIR and identifies areas where additional research is necessary. PROSPERO, CRD42015017661.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 659 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 652 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 145 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 101 15%
Researcher 90 14%
Student > Bachelor 67 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 5%
Other 104 16%
Unknown 117 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 88 13%
Social Sciences 64 10%
Computer Science 47 7%
Psychology 46 7%
Other 121 18%
Unknown 144 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#303,753
of 16,575,021 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#31
of 1,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,940
of 297,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,575,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.