View source for EHealth


=Discussion=


==eHealth as a field of research==


Source: Chapter 6 on eHealth, from [[New Intersections of Internet Research]]

LUCA CAMERINI & YUJUNG NAM:

"The Internet is one of the most widely adopted communication technologies in the
world today (2009). The communicative practices within the healthcare systems are
no exception. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, more than
75 percent of American adults have used the Internet to find medical information
(Pew Internet & American Life Report, 2008). Similar data can be seen amongst
European countries (Internet World Stats, 2009). The Internet is not only used to
locate health information, but also to locate treatment plans, buy drugs, and keep
track of health data. The widespread use of the Internet for such a variety of purposes
demonstrates the need for a systematic approach to the study of its impact on
the healthcare system and the individuals who navigate it. For this reason, a new field
of research, eHealth, has been created. Currently, one of the most widely recognized
definitions of eHealth states that it is the use of emerging information and communication
technology, especially the Internet, to improve or enable health and
healthcare (Eng, 2001). According to Eysenbach (2005), this field has grown in the
intersection of medical informatics, public health, and business and is defined as
referring to health services and information delivered or enhanced through the
Internet and related technologies. The scope of eHealth, according to these definitions,
is very large and includes technologies that might not necessarily be web-based.

A literature review conducted by Oh, Rizo, Enkin, and Jaded (2005) found
more than 51 definitions for the term. They also found that despite the terminological
disagreement a number of these definitions have common characteristics
including the use of technology as the main communication channel and a focus
on health-related issues. The combination of these two components results in
eHealth interventions, which Bennett and Glasgow (2009) defined as “systematic
treatment/prevention programs, usually addressing one or more determinants of
health (frequent health behaviors), delivered largely via the Internet (although not
necessarily web-based), and interfacing with an end user.”

==Benefits of eHealth Approaches==
“There are two ways to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth interventions: the first
is the potential reach of the interventions, and the second, the impact of the intervention
on the patient’s health status. Whether this impact is direct, mediated, or
moderated will be discussed later. However, it is important to note that several randomized studies have shown the effectiveness of Internet interventions within a variety
of clinical studies, including asthma management, smoking cessation, chronic
pain, diabetes, alcohol abuse, anxiety and depression, headache, insomnia, HIV prevention,
mental health disorders, physical activity, organ donation, sexually transmitted
diseases, stress management, and weight loss (see Bennett & Glasgow
[2009] for a review). Furthermore, within these clinical outcomes, medical decisionmaking
and risk assessments have proven to be well-supported by interactive web
applications.


Evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth interventions is well-documented in
recent literature. For example, Griffith, Lindenmeyer, Powell, Lowe, and Thorogood
(2006) conducted a qualitative systematic review in order to understand the reasons
why healthcare interventions are delivered over the Internet. The main result of this
study was the creation of a categorization of reasons for using the Internet, as well
as drawbacks, and suggestions for future research. The six main reasons for using
the Internet identified were: reducing costs for users, reducing costs for health services,
reducing isolation of the user, the need for timely information, reducing the
social stigma, and increased user and supplier control of the intervention. As for
drawbacks, the authors found that the Internet might reinforce the problems interventions
are intended to help and, therefore, the Internet should not become a substitute
for face-to-face interactions (e.g., patients may overestimate the potential of
a peer support group and become more reluctant to meet their physician).


Additionally, the authors suggested incorporating the costs for the users and their
social networks into the study, not limiting the scope of the healthcare system and
comparing the Internet with traditional care in order to mark its added benefits.
It is important also to note that a revised version of the Cochrane review by
Murray, Burns, See, Lai, and Nazareth (2005) revealed that interactive health communication
applications (IHCA) have had a positive effect on knowledge, social
support, behavioral outcomes, and clinical outcomes. IHCA are also likely to have
a positive effect on self-efficacy. The impact of IHCA on emotional and economic
outcomes was not able to be determined.


Internet interventions are not beneficial simply as a supplementary treatment
option, but they have also been proven to be more effective than traditional interventions
in various domains. In particular, Wantland, Portillo, Holzemer, Slaughter,
McGhee (2004) reviewed clinical trials investigating the difference between webbased
versus non-web-based interventions. Sixteen out of the seventeen studies
included in the analysis favored the web-based intervention. However, only six of
these studies showed a significant improvement when compared to their offline
counterparts. This is a general problem of Internet-based randomized controlled trials,
which often suffer from a high attrition rate as stated by Eysenbach (2005).
However, eHealth intervention literature shows that regardless of these attrition
rates, the benefits of eHealth interventions are consistent (Strecher, 2007; Van
Meter, 1999; Ybarra & Eaton, 2005).”

==Conclusions==

“Research on the impact of eHealth interventions is no longer in its infancy.
Throughout this chapter, we have shown how this field has been able to build upon
theories and applications borrowed from different disciplines. The problem of
exploiting networking technology in order to reduce the divide between consumers’
expectations and healthcare systems’ performances may remain unsolved. However,
the constant effort to integrate eHealth applications into healthcare delivery is proving
beneficial in terms of social support, empowerment, health literacy, and health
outcomes. This scientific enquiry is far from complete. Our overview suggests
future research opportunities or nexuses, as summarized later in the chapter, with
distinctions kept between those linked to the theoretical dimension of the discipline
and empirical research.


The two main theoretical dimensions that emerge from this research are the
integration of the social networking approach in the field of eHealth and Health
communication, and the need for eHealth-specific theories and models. Individual
and networking approaches to the study of eHealth interventions focus on different
aspects of their impact, and should be considered as complementary rather than
oppositional. Indeed, Internet interventions in healthcare impact characteristics,
such as knowledge, empowerment, motivation, and intention to behave. These
characteristics are strongly affected by the social network in which the individual
is embedded and, thus, the concepts of social support, social capital, diffusion and
adoption become extremely relevant in regard to gaining a comprehensive understanding
of what does and does not work in terms of technological support for
healthcare delivery. Individual approaches are grounded in the tradition of psychology
and, more recently, social marketing. The networking approaches have been
developed from a sociological and media studies perspective. These contributions
are merging in the eHealth and health communication domains with results that
are promising and likely to be refined in the near future. This integrative perspective
requires the definition and empirical verification of theories and models that
are specifically aimed at exploring eHealth interventions. As we underlined previously,
these kinds of theoretical contributions are still scarce in the eHealth domain.
After almost ten years of qualitative and quantitative studies on the impact of
Internet technology in healthcare, the need for further efforts to enrich the theoretical
dimension of the discipline persists.


From an empirical perspective, we mentioned a series of interventions that
responded to the current uses and needs for gratification of the individual accessing
eHealth tools. However, at least three challenges still need addressing: namely,
the evaluation of single components that constitute an eHealth intervention, the
need for an integration of new web technologies into a single intervention, and some
level of agreement in respect to the metrics for eHealth evaluation. The attempt to
“unpack” the black box that was introduced in this chapter underlies the fact that
we must not limit experimental research in regard to the evaluation of eHealth interventions
as a whole. Instead, an urgent need exists for more refined factorial designs
in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the single tools that are offered to patients.
This methodological challenge is likely to become increasingly relevant, considering
the variety of tools that can be exploited, from podcasting to real-time monitoring.
Eventually, the ways in which individuals use these tools will make a
difference in terms of their effectiveness. However, in order to include actual usage
in empirical models, it is necessary to reach an agreement on the metrics that are
used to assess it (e.g., a consensus on the measurement units of weblogs metrics).


These theoretical and empirical challenges represent a nexus for the eHealth
domain, grounded in the work done so far. The pursuit is ongoing, and future
research on the impact of the Internet in the healthcare domain should aim to generate
a solid point of reference for researchers, health professionals, and public
health policymakers alike.”


Source: Chapter 6 on eHealth, from [[New Intersections of Internet Research]]



[[Category:Health]]

[[Category:Research]]