Zusammenfassung
Trotz des großen Potentials digitaler Innovationen im Gesundheitswesen mangelt es oft an deren erfolgreicher Diffusion, d. h. Verbreitung, im Gesundheitswesen. Um diesem Problem zu begegnen, wurden in der Nachwuchsforschergruppe Care4Saxony Lösungsansätze und -werkzeuge für die Unterstützung von AkteurInnen im Gesundheitswesen erarbeitet. Der folgende Beitrag beleuchtet den Prozess der Diffusion im Allgemeinen und erläutert die Neuerungen des Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetzes in Deutschland. Darauf aufbauend werden weitere Empfehlungen identifiziert, welche die Diffusion und damit den Erfolg digitaler Interventionen weiter vorantreiben können.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Barrieren werden als Faktoren verstanden, welche die Adaption von DI negativ beeinflussen.
- 2.
In der Studie wurde speziell zu Telemedizin-Anwendungen im Sinne einer Klasse spezifischer DI geforscht.
Literatur
Abbott PA, Liu Y (2013) A scoping review of telehealth. IMIA Yearb Med Inform 8:51–58
Albreht T, Kiasuwa R, Van der Bulcke M (Hrsg) (2017) EUROPEAN guide on quality improvement in comprehensive cancer control, CanCon – Cancer Control Joint Action. Scientific Institute of Public Health/National Institute of Public Health, Brussels/Ljubljana
Barello S, Graffigna G, Vegni E (2012) Patient engagement as an emerging challenge for healthcare services: mapping the literature [WWW document]. Nurs Res Pract. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/905934
Böhm K, Schmid A, Götze R, Landwehr C, Rothgang H (2013) Five types of OECD healthcare systems: empirical results of a deductive classification. Health Policy 113:258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.003
Broens THF, Huis in’t Veld RMHA, Vollenbroek-Hutten MMR, Hermens HJ, van Halteren AT, Nieuwenhuis LJM (2007) Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study. J Telemed Telecare 13:303–309. https://doi.org/10.1258/135763307781644951
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Edwards RW, Jumper-Thurman P, Plested BA, Oetting ER, Swanson L (2000) Community readiness: research to practice. J Community Psychol 28:291–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200005)28:3<291::AID-JCOP5>3.0.CO;2-9
Eysenbach G (2001) What is e-health? J Med Internet Res 3:e20
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Gersch M, Rüsike T (2011) Diffusionshemmnisse innovativer E-Health Anwendungen im deutschen Gesundheitswesen. E-Health@Home (Forschung-Gestaltung-Implementierung), Berlin
Govender SM, Mars M (2016) The use of telehealth services to facilitate audiological management for children: a scoping review and content analysis. J Telemed Telecare 23:392–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16645728
Gros DF, Morland LA, Greene CJ, Acierno R, Strachan M, Egede LE, Tuerk PW, Myrick H, Frueh BC (2013) Delivery of evidence-based psychotherapy via video telehealth. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 35:506–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9363-4
Häckl D (2010) Neue Technologien im Gesundheitswesen: Rahmenbedingungen und Akteure. Gabler, Wiesbaden
Hage E, Roo JP, van Offenbeek MAG, Boonstra A (2013) Implementation factors and their effect on e-Health service adoption in rural communities: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-19
Harst L, Lantzsch H, Scheibe M (2019a) Theories predicting end-user acceptance of telemedicine use: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 21:e13117. https://doi.org/10.2196/13117
Harst L, Timpel P, Otto L, Richter P, Wollschlaeger B, Winkler K, Schlieter H (2019b) Identifying barriers in telemedicine-supported integrated care research: scoping reviews and qualitative content analysis. J Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-019-01065-5
Hastall M, Dockweiler C, Mühlhaus J (2017) Achieving end user acceptance: building blocks for an evidence-based user-centered framework for health technology development and assessment. In: Antona M, Stephanidis C (Hrsg) Universal access in human–computer interaction. Human and technological environments. Springer, New York, S 13–25
Huang F, Blaschke S, Lucas H (2017) Beyond pilotitis: taking digital health interventions to the national level in China and Uganda. Glob Health 13:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0275-z
Jang-Jaccard J, Nepal S, Alem L, Li J (2014) Barriers for delivering telehealth in rural Australia: a review based on Australian trials and studies. Telemed J E Health 20:496–504. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0189
Jennett PA, Jackson A, Healy T, Ho K, Kazanjian A, Woollard RF, Haydt SM, Bates J (2003) A study of a rural community’s readiness for telehealth. J Telemed Telecare 9:259–263
Jensen LK, Knarvik U, Pedersen CD, Tangene W, Whitehouse D (2015) Deliverable 3.4 personalised blueprint for telemedicine deployment: validated and tested version, momentum – European momentum for mainstreaming telemedicine deployment in daily practice. Online-Deliverable - web-Ressource angeben: http://www.telemedicine-momentum.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/D3.4_v1.0_ValidatedBlueprint.pdf
Karnowski V (2011) Diffusionstheorien. Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845260334
Minkman M (2016) The development model for integrated care: a validated tool for evaluation and development. J Integr Care 24:38–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-01-2016-0005
Minkman MM, Vermeulen RP, Ahaus KT, Huijsman R (2013) A survey study to validate a four phases development model for integrated care in the Netherlands. BMC Health Serv Res 13:214. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-214
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies. NICE, Web-Ressource: https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7/resources/evidence-standards-framework-for-digitalhealth-technologies-pdf-1124017457605
Otto L (2019) Implementing and scaling up telemedicine initiatives: beyond user-centeredness. In: Presented at the 2019 16th IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications. Abu Dhabi, S 1–6
Otto L, Harst L (2019a) Investigating barriers for the implementation of telemedicine initiatives: a systematic review of reviews. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Americas conference of information systems. Presented at the AMCIS 2019. Cancun
Otto L, Harst L (2019b) Bringing telemedicine into regular care: theoretical underpinning for user-centred design processes. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third Pacific Asia conference on information systems. Presented at the twenty-third Pacific Asia conference on information systems. Xi’an
Otto L, Harst L, Timpel P, Wollschlaeger B, Richter P, Schlieter H (2020) Defining and delimitating telemedicine and related terms – an ontology-based classification. In: Maeder AJ, Champion S, Moores C, Golley R (Hrsg) Information technology based methods for health behaviours, studies in health technology and informatics. IOS Press, Amsterdam/Berlin/Washington, DC, S 113–122
Peeters JM, de Veer AJE, van der Hoek L, Francke AL (2012) Factors influencing the adoption of home telecare by elderly or chronically ill people: a national survey. J Clin Nurs 21:3183–3193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04173.x
Richter P (2019) Bringing care quality to life: towards quality indicator-driven pathway modelling for integrated care networks. In: Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems. Presented at the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Stockholm-Uppsala
Richter P, Schlieter H (2019a) Process-based quality management in care: adding a quality perspective to pathway modelling. In: Panetto H, Debruyne C, Hepp M, Lewis D, Ardagna CA, Meersman R (Hrsg) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2019 conferences, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, S 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33246-4_25
Richter P, Schlieter H (2019b) Understanding patient pathways in the context of integrated health care services – implications from a scoping review. In: Proceedings Der 14. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik. Presented at the 14. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik. Siegen, S 997–1011
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5. Aufl. Free Press, New York
Schlieter H, Sunyaev A, Breitschwerdt R, Sedlmayr M (2019) Editorial – digital health. it – Information Technology 61:209–210. https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2019-0045
Sood S, Mbarika V, Jugoo S, Dookhy R, Doarn CR, Prakash N, Merrell RC (2007) What is telemedicine? A collection of 104 peer-reviewed perspectives and theoretical underpinnings. J Telemed Telecare 13:573–590. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2006.0073
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27:425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2015) Global diffusion of eHealth. Making universal health coverage achievable, Global Observatory for eHealth
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schlieter, H. et al. (2022). Diffusionsprozesse digitaler Interventionen erfolgreich gestalten. In: Lux, T., Köberlein-Neu, J., Müller-Mielitz, S. (eds) E-Health-Ökonomie II. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35691-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35691-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-35690-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-35691-0
eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)