The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-018-1199-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Expectations of physicians concerning e‑Health and perceived barriers to implementation in clinical practice are scarcely reported in the literature. The purpose of this study was to assess these aspects of cardiovascular e‑Health.
A survey was sent to members of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology. In total, the questionnaire contained 30 questions about five topics: personal use of smartphones, digital communication between respondents and patients, current e‑Health implementation in clinical practice, expectations about e‑Health and perceived barriers for e‑Health implementation. Age, personal use of smartphones and professional environment were noted as baseline characteristics.
In total, 255 respondents filled out the questionnaire (response rate 25%); 89.4% of respondents indicated that they considered e‑Health to be clinically beneficial, improving patient satisfaction (90.2%), but also that it will increase the workload (83.9%). Age was a negative predictor and personal use of smartphones was a positive predictor of having high expectations. Lack of reimbursement was identified by 66.7% of respondents as a barrier to e‑Health implementation, as well as a lack of reliable devices (52.9%) and a lack of data integration with electronic medical records (EMRs) (69.4%).
Cardiologists are in general positive about the possibilities of e‑Health implementation in routine clinical care; however, they identify deficient data integration into the EMR, reimbursement issues and lack of reliable devices as major barriers. Age and personal use of smartphones are predictors of expectations of e‑Health, but the professional working environment is not.
Appendix A A is an English translation of the Dutch questionnaire that was given to cardiologists.12471_2018_1199_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Appendix B provides insight in how the expectations score, given in the results section, was calculated out of the results of the questionnaire12471_2018_1199_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Eysenbach G. What is e‑health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3:E20. CrossRef
Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:742–52. CrossRef
Ruiz Morilla MD, Sans M, Casasa A, Gimenez N. Implementing technology in healthcare: insights from physicians. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017;17:92.
Furman S, Escher D. Transtelephone pacemaker monitoring. In: Schaldach, Furman. Advances in Pacemaker Technology. Berlin: Springer; 1975.
Heidbuchel H, Lioen P, Foulon S, et al. Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace. 2008;10:351–7. CrossRef
Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, et al. Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2591–600. CrossRef
Doctors should not use whatsapp (In Dutch: ‘Privacywaakhond: artsen mogen Whatsapp niet meer gebruiken’) [cited 2018 May 31st]. Available from: https://nos.nl/artikel/2088687-privacywaakhond-artsen-mogen-whatsapp-niet-meer-gebruiken.html.
NZA expands possibilities for e‑Health in secondary care in 2018 (in Dutch: NZa verruimt mogelijkheden voor e‑Health in de medisch-specialistische zorg per 2018). Available from: https://www.nza.nl/actueel/nieuws/2017/09/21/nza-verruimt-mogelijkheden-voor-e-health-in-de-medisch-specialistische-zorg-per-2018.
Kumar N, Khunger M, Gupta A, Garg N. A content analysis of smartphone-based applications for hypertension management. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2015;9:130–6. CrossRef
Treskes RW, van der Velde ET, Barendse R, Bruining N. Mobile health in cardiology: a review of currently available medical apps and equipment for remote monitoring. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13:823–30. CrossRef
Treskes RW, van Winden LA, van Keulen N, et al. Using Smart Technology to Improve Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction Patients: Rationale and Design of a Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial, The Box. Jmir Res Protoc. 2017;6:e186. CrossRef
Wicks P, Chiauzzi E. ‘Trust but verify’—five approaches to ensure safe medical apps. Bmc Med. 2015;13:205. CrossRef
Number of mHealth apps available in the Apple App Store from 2nd quarter 2015 to 4th quarter 2017 2018 [cited 2018 March 30th]. Available from: Number of mHealth apps available in the Apple App Store from 2nd quarter 2015 to 4th quarter 2017.
De Simone A, Leoni L, Luzi M, et al. Remote monitoring improves outcome after ICD implantation: the clinical efficacy in the management of heart failure (EFFECT) study. Europace. 2015;17:1267–75. CrossRef
Treskes RW, Van Der Velde ET, Atsma DE, Schalij MJ. Redesigning healthcare: The 2.4 billion euro question? : Connecting smart technology to improve outcome of patients. Neth Heart J. 2016;24:441–6. CrossRef
- Expectations and perceived barriers to widespread implementation of e‑Health in cardiology practice: Results from a national survey in the Netherlands
R. W. Treskes
T. X. Wildbergh
M. J. Schalij
R. W. C. Scherptong
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie
Mail Icon II