Next Article in Journal
Framework for Integrating Productive, Contributory, and Noncontributory Work with Safe and Unsafe Acts and Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Organizational Risk Factors for Aircrew Health: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications

1
Healthcare Management Postgraduate Program, Open University Cyprus, P.O. Box 12794, Nicosia 2252, Cyprus
2
Department of Applied Informatics, University of Macedonia, 156 Egnatia Street, GR54636 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(4), 3407; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043407
Submission received: 29 October 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2023 / Accepted: 10 February 2023 / Published: 15 February 2023

Abstract

:
Technological innovation has become an integral aspect of our daily life, such as wearable and information technology, virtual reality and the Internet of Things which have contributed to transforming healthcare business and operations. Patients will now have a broader range and more mindful healthcare choices and experience a new era of healthcare with a patient-centric culture. Digital transformation determines personal and institutional health care. This paper aims to analyse the changes taking place in the field of healthcare due to digital transformation. For this purpose, a systematic bibliographic review is performed, utilising Scopus, Science Direct and PubMed databases from 2008 to 2021. Our methodology is based on the approach by Wester and Watson, which classify the related articles based on a concept-centric method and an ad hoc classification system which identify the categories used to describe areas of literature. The search was made during August 2022 and identified 5847 papers, of which 321 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for further process. Finally, by removing and adding additional studies, we ended with 287 articles grouped into five themes: information technology in health, the educational impact of e-health, the acceptance of e-health, telemedicine and security issues.

1. Introduction

Digital transformation refers to the digital technology changes used to benefit society and the healthcare industry. Healthcare systems need to use digital technology for innovative solutions to improve healthcare delivery and to achieve improvement in medical problems. The digital transformation of healthcare includes changes related to the internet, digital technologies, and their relation to new therapies and best practices for better health management procedures. The quality control of massive data collected can help improve patients’ well-being and reduce the cost of services. Digital technologies will also impact medical education, and experts will deceive new ways to train people. Now in this way, practitioners will face new opportunities.
Digital transformation is an ongoing process that can create opportunities in the health sector, provided the necessary infrastructure and training are available. Under Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021, establishing the Digital Europe Program and repealing Decision (EU) 2015/2240, digital transformation is defined as the use of digital technologies for the transformation of businesses and services. Some technologies that contribute to digital transformation are the digital platform of the Internet of Things, cloud computing and artificial intelligence. At the same time, the sectors of society that are almost affected are telecommunications, financial services and healthcare.
Digital health can play a role in innovation in health, as it facilitates the participation of patients in the process of providing health care [1]. The patient can overcome his poor state of health when they are no longer in a state of well-being. In this case, the patient is given the to participate in the decision-making regarding their health care. Searching for information through the patient’s internet or using digital health applications (e.g., via mobile phone) is essential for the patient to make the right decision about their health.
In the coming years, health change is expected to focus primarily on the patient, who will take on the “health service consumer” role as the patient seeks control over their health management. The healthcare industry will be shaped based on the needs and expectations of this new “consumer of health services”, which will require upgraded experiences with the main characteristics of personalisation, comfort, speed and immediacy in the provision of services. Gjellebaek C. et al. argue that new digital technologies will shift healthcare towards digitalisation, bringing significant benefits to patients and healthcare infrastructure [2]. Some of the benefits listed by Gjellebaek C. are the increase in employee productivity, the improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the health units, and the reduction of their operating costs.
On the other hand, in terms of health infrastructure, a typical example is the United States, where 75% of hospitals use electronic health record systems, according to Rebekah E. et al. [3]. However, clinicians often report side effects using digital technologies, which can be attributed to their misuse [3]. In addition, some health professionals oppose using these systems and develop solutions that jeopardise patient care. In some countries, such as the United States, the government provides incentives for the “effective use” of e-health technologies, but their results remain uncertain [3].
Rebekah E. et al. focus more specifically on U.S. hospitals, observing that the remaining countries are relatively in the early stages of transformation [4]. The United Kingdom, for example, has recently pursued troubled e-health initiatives, and Australian hospitals have only recently participated in investments in the digitalisation of their hospital services [4]. At the European Union level, digital health is a critical key strategic priority, in line with the European Strategic Plan 2019–2024 (European Commission).
Today, digital transformation in health is spreading and consolidating rapidly [5]. The purpose of this paper is to provide an assessment of the current literature on digital health transformation, as well as to identify potential vulnerabilities that make its implementation impossible. The ultimate goal is to see how digital technologies facilitate patients’ participation in health and their health.
Due to the rapid development of e-health and digitalisation, data from previous studies are becoming potentially irrelevant. Most studies evaluating digitalisation have relied heavily on quantitative research-based methods. Although quantitative evaluations are required, some of their effects could be omitted.
According to Gopal G. et al., healthcare has the lowest level of digital innovation compared to other industries, such as media, finance, insurance and retail, contributing to limited labour productivity growth [6]. With this article, we seek to reverse this picture and contribute to the emergence of digitalisation as a factor of health innovation while optimising patient outcomes and the cost of services provided. However, to achieve this innovation, systemic changes are needed in healthcare finances, the education of healthcare staff and healthcare infrastructure.
The following section analyses the methodology and its steps, which then contributed to the emergence of our results.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Bibliography Reviews

Our research approach is based on the methodology of Webster and Watson, who developed a concept-centric method and an ad hoc classification system in which categories are used to describe areas of literature [7]. Initially, the existing bibliographic reviews were searched to select the databases based on keywords. A retrospective search was then performed to examine the reports of the selected works. Finally, the references of selected works were investigated to increase the search sample through the future search. After selecting the articles, they were grouped according to their content.
Systematic reviews were conducted to place this paper on existing knowledge of digital health, as well as to review prior knowledge in this area and to discuss recognised research questions based on the results of previous studies. A comprehensive review of the published literature was reported by Marques, I. C., & Ferreira, J. J. [8]. The authors explored the potential of existing digital solutions to improve healthcare quality and analysed the emerging trend in digital medicine to evaluate the research question of how stakeholders apply and manage digital technologies for business purposes [9]. The main question is: How and what could be done sustainably and inclusively through innovation to achieve sustainable development goals by taking advantage of Information and Communication Technologies? Recently, researchers have expressed concern about secure communication and user authentication within providing information to patients. In contrast with data storage, information exchange, and system integration, new approaches and uses of patient care processes are envisaged with the prospect of monitoring not only diagnostic statistics but also in-depth analysis of signs and symptoms before and after treatment, essential sources for new research. Table 1 presents the previous bibliographic reviews on which our study was based.

2.2. Network Analysis

Network analysis is considered a branch of graph theory. Our network analysis is based on the similarity of keywords found in identifying the eligible papers. We used visualisation of similarities (VOS) software, version 1.6.18, to construct graphical networks to understand the clustering of the keywords and their degree of dissimilarity. Our network analysis is based on the similarity of keywords found in identifying the eligible papers.

Initial Search

The search was performed on the following databases: Scopus, Science Direct, and PubMed, using the keywords “digital transformation”, “digitalisation”, “Ehealth or e-health”, “mhealth or m-health”, “healthcare” and “health economics”. We selected publications from the search of international journals and conference proceedings. We collected papers from 2008 until 2021. The documents sought belonged to strategy, management, computer science, medicine, and health professions. Finally, the published works were in English only. The total number of articles collected using the keywords as shown in Table 2 was 5847.
We systematically checked the total number of papers 5847 by reading their titles, abstracts, and, whenever necessary, the article’s first page to conclude if each document was relevant as a first step as shown in the Figure 1.
Then, we looked at the titles of the 378 articles, and after reading their summary, we accepted 321 articles. Further studies were rejected because their full text was not accessible. As a result, there were 255 articles in our last search. Of the selected 255 articles, 32 more were added based on backward and forward research. The investigation was completed by collecting common standards from all databases using different keyword combinations. According to the systematic literature review, we follow the standards of Webster and Watson (2002) to reject an article. Since then, we have collected the critical mass of the relevant publications, as shown in Figure 2.

3. Results

3.1. Chronological Development of the Publications

The categorisation of the articles was based on their content and the concepts discussed within them. As a result, we classify articles into the following categories: information technology in health, the educational impact on e-health, the acceptance of e-health, telemedicine, and e-health security.
Although researchers in Information and Communication Technology and digitalisation conducted studies almost two decades ago, most publications have been published in the last eight years. This exciting finding highlights the importance of this field and its continuous development. Figure 3 shows a clear upward trend in recent years. More specifically, the research field of Information and Communication Technology, in combination with digital transformation, appeared in 2008. However, the most significant number of articles was found in 2019, 2020 and 2021. The number of articles decreased to the lowest in 2009–2011 and 2013–2014. Due to the expansion of the field to new technologies, the researchers studied whether the existing technological solutions are sufficient for implementing digital transformation and what problems they may face.
Figure 3 shows a combination of the articles per year and the number of citations per publication per year.

3.2. Document Type

Of the document types, 59.51 per cent of the articles were categorised as “survey”, while a smaller percentage were in: “case study” (32.53%), “literature review” (5.88%) and “report” (2.08%). However, these documents focused on specific concepts: “information technology in health” (45%), “education impact of e-health” (11%), “acceptance of e-health” (19%), “telemedicine” (7%), “security of e-health” (18%).
As we can see from the following Figure 4, we used network analysis, where the keywords related to digitalisation and digital transformation were identified in the research study. Network analysis, using keywords, came with VOSviewer software to find more breadth and information on healthcare digitalisation and transformation exploration. It was created by analysing the coexistence of keywords author and index. This analysis’s importance lies in the structure of the specific research field is highlighted. In addition, it helped map the intellectual structure of scientific literature. Keywords were obtained from the title and summary of a document. However, there was a limit to the number of individual words. The figure represents a grid focused on reproducing keywords in the literature on the general dimensions of digitalisation. The digitalisation network analysis showed that e-health, telemedicine, telehealth, mobile health, electronic health/medical record, and information systems were the main relevant backgrounds in the literature we perceived. In the healthcare literature, keywords such as “empowerment” and “multicenter study” usually do not lead to a bibliographic search on digitalisation. Figure 4 shows how e-health and telemedicine have gone beyond the essential and most crucial research framework on how they can affect hospitals and the health sector. The potentially small gaps in network analysis can be filled by utilising data in our research study, contributing to future research.
Figure 5 shows the network analysis with the keywords concerning time publication. The yellow colour indicates keywords for most recent years.
Figure 6 presents the density visualisation of keywords.
Figure 7 shows the number of articles per each method (survey, literature review etc.) for each year.
It is evident from Figure 7 that the most used method paper is the survey type and that in the year 2021, we have a high number of surveys compared to previous years.

3.3. Summary of the Included Articles

In Figure 2, we have explained how we collected the critical mass of the 255 relevant publications. We added another 32 articles based on further research with the backward and research methods, which resulted in a total number of 287 articles.
Then, the articles were categorised according to their content. The concepts discussed in the papers are related to information technology in health, the educational impact of e-health, the acceptance of e-health, telemedicine, and e-health security. For this purpose, the following table was created, called the concept matrix table.

4. Concept Matrix

In this section, we provide the Concept matrix table. Academic resources are classified according to if each article belongs or not to any of the five concepts shown in Table 3.

5. Analysis of Concepts

From the articles included in the present study between 2008 and 2021, they were grouped into five categories identified: (i) information technology in health, (ii) acceptance of e-health, (iii) telemedicine, (iv) security of e-health, and (v) education impact of e-health.

5.1. Information Technology in Health

Researchers have studied several factors to maximise the effectiveness and success of adopting new technology to benefit patients. Hospitals can benefit from information technology when designing or modifying new service procedures. Health units can use information and communication technology applications to analyse and identify patients’ needs and preferences, enhancing their service innovation processes. Previous findings conclude that technological capability positively influences patient service and innovation in the service process [301]. These results have significant management implications as managers seek to increase technology resources’ efficiency to achieve patient-centred care as the cornerstone of medical practice [207].
Informatics facilitates the exchange of knowledge necessary for creating ideas and the development process. The internet supports health organisations in developing and distributing their services more efficiently [206]. Also, Information Technology improves the quality of services, reduces costs, and helps increase patient satisfaction. As new technologies have created opportunities for companies developing high-tech services, healthcare units can increase customer value, personalise services and adapt to their patient’s needs [209]. To this end, the “smart hospitals” should represent the latest investment frontiers impacting healthcare. Their technological characteristics are so advanced that the public authorities need know-how for their conception, construction, and operation [228].
A new example is reshaping global healthcare services in their infancy, emphasising the transition from sporadic acute healthcare to continuous and comprehensive healthcare. This approach is further refined by “anytime and everywhere access to safe eHealth services.” Recent developments in eHealth, digital transformation and remote data interchange, mobile communication, and medical technology are driving this new paradigm. Follow-up and timely intervention, comprehensive care, self-care, and social support are four added features in providing health care anywhere and anytime [289]. However, the healthcare sector’s already precarious security and privacy conditions are expected to be exacerbated in this new example due to the much greater monitoring, collection, storage, exchange, and retrieval of patient information and the cooperation required between different users, institutions, and systems.
The use of mobile telephony technologies to support health goals contributes to the transformation of healthcare benefits worldwide. The same goes for small and medium-sized healthcare companies, such as pharmacies. A potent combination of factors between companies and customers is the reason for creating new relationships. In particular, mobile technology applications represent new opportunities for integrating mobile health into existing services, facilitating the continued growth of quality service management. Service-based, service-focused strategies have changed distribution patterns and the relationship between resellers and consumers in the healthcare industry, resulting in mobile health and significant pharmacy opportunities. It has been an important research topic in the last decade because it has influenced and changed traditional communication between professionals and patients [211]. An example of a mobile healthcare platform is “Thymun”, designed and developed by Salamah et al. aiming to create intelligent health communities to improve the health and well-being of autoimmune people in Indonesia [225].

5.2. Acceptance of E-Health

In a long-term project and a population study (1999–2002), Hsu et al. evaluated e-health usage patterns [302]. The authors conclude that access to and use of e-health services are rapidly increasing. These services are more significant in people with more medical needs. Fang (2015) shows that scientific techniques can be an essential tool for revealing patterns in medical research that could not be apparent with traditional methods of reviewing the medical literature [303]. Teleradiology and telediagnosis, electronic health records, and Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) are examples of digital medical technology. France is an example of a country that invests and leads in electronic health records, based on what is written by Manard S. et al. [243]. However, the impact of technological innovation is reflected in the availability of equipment and new technical services in different or specialised healthcare sectors.
On the other hand, Mariusz Duplaga (2013) argues that the expansion of e-health solutions is related to the growing demand for flexible, integrated and cost-effective models of chronic care [304]. The scope of applications that can support patients with chronic diseases is broad. In addition to accessing educational resources, patients with chronic diseases can use various electronic diaries and systems for long-term disease monitoring. Depending on the disease and the symptoms, the devices used to assess the patient’s condition vary. However, the need to report symptoms and measurements remains the same. According to Duplaga, the success of treatments depends on the patient’s involvement in monitoring and managing the disease. The emphasis on the role of the patient is parallel to the general tendency of people and patients to participate in decisions made about their health. Involving patients in monitoring their symptoms leads to improved awareness and ability to manage diseases. Duplaga argues that the widespread use of e-health systems depends on several factors, including the acceptance and ability to use information technology tools, combined with an understanding of disease and treatment.
Sumedha Chauhan & Mahadeo Jaiswal (2017) are on the same wavelength. They claim that e-health applications provide tools, processes and communication systems to support e-health practices [305]. These applications enable the transmission and management of information related to health care and thus contribute to improving patient’s health and physicians’ performance. The human element plays a critical role in the use of e-health, according to the authors. In addition, researchers have studied the acceptance of e-health applications among patients and the general public, as they use services such as home care and search for information online. The meta-analysis they use combines and analyzes quantitative findings of multiple empirical studies providing essential knowledge. However, the reason for their research was the study of Holden and Karsh (2010) [306].
To provide a comprehensive view of the literature acceptance of e-health applications, Holden and Karsh reviewed 16 studies based on healthcare technology acceptance models [306]. Findings show them that the use and acceptance of technological medical solutions bring improvements but can be adopted by those involved in the medical field.

5.3. Telemedicine

On the other hand, telemedicine is considered one of the most important innovations in health services, not only from a technological but also from a cultural and social point of view. It benefits the accessibility of healthcare services and organisational efficiency [215]. Its role is to meet the challenges posed by the socio-economic change in the 21st century (higher demands for health care, ageing population, increased mobility of citizens, need to manage large volumes of information, global competitiveness, and improved health care provision) in an environment with limited budgets and costs. Nevertheless, there are significant obstacles to its standardisation and complete consolidation and expansion [300].
At present, there are Telemedicine centres that mediate between the patient and the hospital or doctor. However, many factors make this communication impossible [300]. Such factors include equipment costs, connectivity problems, the patient’s trust or belief in the system or centre that applies telemedicine, and resistance to new and modern diagnostics, especially in rural and island areas. Therefore, telemedicine would make it easier to provide healthcare systems in remote areas than having a specialist in all the country’s remote regions [300]. Analysing the concept further, one can easily argue that the pros outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore, telemedicine must be adopted in a concerted effort to resolve all the obstacles we are currently facing. Telemedicine centres and services such as teleradiology, teledermatology, teleneurology, and telemonitoring will soon be included. This means that a few years from now, the patient will not have to go to a central hospital and can benefit remotely from the increased quality of health services. This will save valuable time, make good use of available resources, save patient costs, and adequately develop existing and new infrastructure.
In 2007, the World Health Organisation adopted the following broad description of telemedicine: “The delivery of health care services, where distance is a critical factor, by all health care professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for the continuing education of health care providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities ” [307]
According to the Wayback Machine, Canadian Telehealth Forum, other terms similar to telemedicine are telehealth and e-health, which are used as broader concepts of remote medical therapy. It is appropriate to clarify that telemedicine refers to providing clinical services. In contrast, telehealth refers to clinical and non-clinical services, including education, management and research in medical science. On the other hand, the term eHealth, most commonly used in the Americas and Europe, consists of telehealth and other elements of medicine that use information technology, according to the American Telemedicine Association [308].
The American Telemedicine Association divides telemedicine into three categories: storage-promotion, remote monitoring, and interactive services. The first category includes medical data, such as medical photographs, cardiograms, etc., which are transferred through new technologies to the specialist doctor to assess the patient’s condition and suggest the appropriate medication. Remote monitoring allows remote observation of the patient. This method is used mainly for chronic diseases like heart disease, asthma, diabetes, etc. Its interactive services enable direct communication between the patient and the treating doctor [309].
Telemedicine is a valuable and efficient tool for people living or working in remote areas. Its usefulness lies in the health access it provides to patients. In addition, it can be used as an educational tool for learning students and medical staff [310].
Telemedicine is an open and constantly evolving science, as it incorporates new technological developments and responds to and adapts to the necessary health changes within societies.
According to J.J. Moffatt, the most common obstacles to the spread of telemedicine are found in the high cost of equipment, the required technical training of staff and the estimated time of a meeting with the doctor, which can often be longer than the use of a standard doctor [311]. On the other hand, the World Health Organisation states that telemedicine offers excellent potential for reducing the variability of diagnoses and improving clinical management and the provision of health care services worldwide. The World Health Organisation claims, according to Craig et al. and Heinzelmann PJ, that telemedicine improves access, quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness [312,313]. In particular, telemedicine can help traditionally under-served communities by overcoming barriers to the distance between healthcare providers and patients [314]. In addition, Jennett PA et al. highlight significant socio-economic benefits for patients, families, health professionals and the health system, including improved patient-provider communication and educational opportunities [315].
On the other hand, Wootton R. argues that telemedicine applications have achieved different levels of success. In both industrial and developing countries, telemedicine has yet to be used consistently in the healthcare system, and few pilot projects have been able to be maintained after the end of their initial funding [316].
However, many challenges are regularly mentioned and responsible for the need for more longevity in many efforts to adopt telemedicine. One such challenge is the complexity of human and cultural factors. Some patients and healthcare workers resist adopting healthcare models that differ from traditional approaches or home practices. In contrast, others need to have the appropriate educational background in Information and Communication Technologies to make effective use of telemedicine approaches [314]. The need for studies documenting telemedicine applications’ economic benefits and cost-effectiveness is also a challenge. Strong business acumen to persuade policymakers to embrace and invest in telemedicine has contributed to a need for more infrastructure and program funding [312]. Legal issues are also significant obstacles to the adoption of telemedicine. These include the need for an international legal framework that allows health professionals to provide services in different jurisdictions and countries. Furthermore, the lack of policies governing data confidentiality, authentication and the risk of medical liability for health professionals providing telemedicine services [314]. In any case, the technological challenges are related to legal issues. In addition, the systems used are complex, and there is a possibility of malfunction, which could cause software or hardware failure. The result is an increase in patient morbidity or mortality as well as the liability of healthcare providers [317].
According to Stanberry B., to overcome these challenges, telemedicine must be regulated by definitive and comprehensive guidelines, which are ideally and widely applied worldwide [318]. At the same time, legislation must be enacted governing health confidentiality, data access, and providers’ responsibility [314].

5.4. Security of eHealth

The possibility of the patients looking at the electronic patient folder in a cloud environment, through mobile devices anytime and anywhere, is significant. On the one hand, the advantages of cloud computing are essential, and on the other hand, a security mechanism is critical to ensure the confidentiality of this environment. Five methods are used to protect data in such environments: (1) users must encrypt the information before storing it; (2) users must transmit information through secure channels; (3) the user ID must be verified before accessing data; (4) the information is divided into small portions for handling and storage, retrieved when necessary; (5) digital signatures are added to verify that a suitable person has created the file to which a user has access. On the other hand, users of these environments will implement self-encryption to protect data and reduce over-reliance on providers [210].
At the same time, Maliha S. et al. [227] proposed the blockchain to preserve sensitive medical information. This technology ensures data integrity by maintaining a trace of control over each transaction. At the same time, zero trusts provide that medical data is encrypted and that only certified users and devices interact with the network. In this way, this model solves many vulnerabilities related to data security [227]. Another alternative approach is the KONFIDO project, which aims at the safe cross-border exchange of health data. A European H2020 project aims to address security issues through a holistic example at the system level. The project combines various cutting-edge technologies in its toolbox (such as blockchain, photonic Physical Unclonable Functions, homomorphic encryption, and trusted execution) [234]. Finally, Coppolino L. et al. [271] proposed using a SIEM framework for an e-healthcare portal developed under the Italian National eHealth Net Program. This framework allows real-time monitoring of access to the portal to identify potential threats and anomalies that could cause significant security issues [271].

5.5. Education Impact of E-Health

But all this would only be feasible with the necessary education of both users and patients [11]. As the volume and quality of evidence in medical education continue to expand, the need for evidence synthesis will increase [295]. On the other hand, Brockers C. et al. argued that digitalisation changes jobs and significantly impacts medical work. The quality of medical data provided for support depends on telemedicine’s medical specialisation and knowledge. Adjustments to primary and further education are inevitable because physicians are well trained to support their patients satisfactorily and confidently in the increasingly complex digitalisation of healthcare. The ultimate goal of the educational community is the closest approach of students to the issues of telemedicine and e-health, the creation of a spirit of trust, and the acceptance and transmission of essential knowledge [268].
Noor also moved in this direction, seeking to discover the gaps in Saudi education for digital transformation in health [248]. The growing complexity of healthcare systems worldwide and the growing reliance of the medical profession on information technology for precise practices and treatments require specific standardised training in Information Technology (IT) health planning. Accreditation of core Information Technology (IT) is advancing internationally. Noor A. examined the state of Information Technology health programmes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to determine (1) how well international standards are met and (2) what further development is required in the light of recent initiatives of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on e-health [248]. Of the 109 institutions that participated in his research, only a few offered programmes specifically in Health Information Technology. As part of Saudi Vision 2030, Saudi digital transformation was deemed an urgent need. This initiative calls for applying internationally accepted Information Technology skills in education programmes and healthcare practices, which can only happen through greater collaboration between medical and technology educators and strategic partnerships with companies, medical centres and government agencies.
Another study by Diviani N. et al. adds to the knowledge of e-health education, demonstrating how online health information affects a person’s overall behaviour and enhances patients’ ability to understand, live and prepare for various health challenges. The increasing digitalisation of communication and healthcare requires further research into the digital divide and patients’ relationships with health professionals. Healthcare professionals must recognise the online information they seek and engage with patients to evaluate online health information and support joint healthcare-making [235].

6. Discussion

The selected studies comprise a conceptual model based on bibliographic research. Using an open-ended technique, we analyse the selected 287 articles, which are grouped into categories based on their context. This methodology provides readers with a good indication of issues concerning the timeliness of health digitalisation. A limitation of the methodology is that selected criteria of the method might be subjective in terms of the search terms and how the papers are selected. The articles indicate that this field is initial, and further research is needed. Although several articles have created a theoretical basis for corporate sustainability and strategic digital management, only limited studies provided guidelines on the strategic digital transformation process and its health implementation stages. However, studies have also developed sustainable models, software or applications in this area. This is also the reason for creating opportunities for future researchers, who will be closed to investigate this gap and improve the viability of digital health strategies. In addition, any work carried out in case studies provides fruitful results by facilitating researchers through deep penetration into sustainable digitalisation. No generalised frameworks are available to guide the wording and implementation of digital action plans. Thus, the need for quantitative or qualitative research is created, providing conclusions on the impact of internal or external factors in the sustainability process, implementation, adoption, planning, and challenges of digital health solutions in general, as well as the impact of digital transformation. Most existing studies explore the issue of digitalisation in a particular part of a nursing institution or a disease rather than the management strategy perspective. In this way, researchers ignore a debate on obstacles and problems that often face in practice during integration. Such an analysis could lead to more profound knowledge.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, our research observed a timeless analysis of systematised studies focusing on digital health developments. These studies broaden the researchers’ vision and provide vital information for further investigation. This article focuses on understanding digitalisation in healthcare, including, for the most part, the digitalisation of information and adopting appropriate parameters for further development. To build a more holistic view of digital health transformation, there is a great need for research on the management implications of digitalisation by different stakeholders. Finally, the development of telemedicine, the further enhancement of digital security and the strengthening of technological information systems will contribute to the universal acceptance of the digital health transformation by all involved.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.I.S., F.K. and M.A.T.; methodology, F.K. and M.A.T.; software, A.I.S.; validation, A.I.S.; data curation, A.I.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.S. and M.A.T.; writing—review and editing, A.I.S. and M.A.T.; visualisation, A.I.S.; supervision, M.A.T.; project administration, M.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Iyawa, G.E.; Herselman, M.; Botha, A. Digital health innovation ecosystems: From systematic literature review to conceptual framework. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 100, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Gjellebæk, C.; Svensson, A.; Bjørkquist, C.; Fladeby, N.; Grundén, K. Management challenges for future digitalization of healthcare services. Futures 2020, 124, 102636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Eden, R.; Burton-Jones, A.; Scott, I.; Staib, A.; Sullivan, C. Effects of eHealth on hospital practice: Synthesis of the current literature. Aust. Health Rev. 2018, 42, 568–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Eden, R.; Burton-Jones, A.; Grant, J.; Collins, R.; Staib, A.; Sullivan, C. Digitising an Australian university hospital: Qualitative analysis of staff-reported impacts. Aust. Health Rev. 2019, 44, 677–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Agarwal, R.; Gao, G.; DesRoches, C.; Jha, A.K. Research commentary—The digital transformation of healthcare: Current status and the road ahead. Inf. Syst. Res. 2010, 21, 796–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Gopal, G.; Suter-Crazzolara, C.; Toldo, L.; Eberhardt, W. Digital transformation in healthcare—Architectures of present and future information technologies. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. CCLM 2019, 57, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 2002, 5, xiii–xxiii. [Google Scholar]
  8. Marques, I.C.; Ferreira, J.J. Digital transformation in the area of health: Systematic review of 45 years of evolution. Health Technol. 2020, 10, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kraus, S.; Schiavone, F.; Pluzhnikova, A.; Invernizzi, A.C. Digital transformation in healthcare: Analyzing the current state-of-research. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kolasa, K.; Kozinski, G. How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Hosseinzadeh, M.; Ahmed, O.H.; Ehsani, A.; Ahmed, A.M.; Hama, H.K.; Vo, B. The impact of knowledge on e-health: A systematic literature review of the advanced systems. Kybernetes 2021, 50, 1506–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nazir, S.; Ali, Y.; Ullah, N.; García-Magariño, I. Internet of Things for Healthcare Using Effects of Mobile Computing: A Systematic Literature Review. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2019, 2019, 5931315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sanyal, C.; Stolee, P.; Juzwishin, D.; Husereau, D. Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Kampmeijer, R.; Pavlova, M.; Tambor, M.; Golinowska, S.; Groot, W. The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016, 16, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Gagnon, M.-P.; Ngangue, P.; Payne-Gagnon, J.; Desmartis, M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: A systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2016, 23, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Wilson, L.; Kim, A.; Szeto, D. The Evidence for the Economic Value of Ehealth in the United States Today: A Systematic Review. J. Int. Soc. Telemed. eHealth 2016, 4, e21. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hu, Y.; Bai, G. A Systematic Literature Review of Cloud Computing in Ehealth. Health Inform. Int. J. 2014, 3, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boonstra, A.; Versluis, A.; Vos, J.F.J. Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Pagliari, C.; Sloan, D.; Gregor, P.; Sullivan, F.; Detmer, D.; Kahan, J.P.; Oortwijn, W.; MacGillivray, S. What Is eHealth (4): A Scoping Exercise to Map the Field. J. Med. Internet Res. 2005, 7, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kesavadev, J.; Krishnan, G.; Mohan, V. Digital health and diabetes: Experience from India. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021, 12, 20420188211054676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Attila, S.Z.; Miklos, S.; Tamas, P.; Viktoria, S.; Tamas, J. Global and national overview of the digital health ecosystem. Inf. Tarsad. 2021, 21, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Malachynska, M.; Sheiko, V.; Polesova, T.; Samoylenko, I. Management of Healthcare Institutions in the Context of Changes and Reforms. AD ALTA-J. Interdiscip. Res. 2021, 11, 137–142. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lu, W.-C.; Tsai, I.C.; Wang, K.-C.; Tang, T.-A.; Li, K.-C.; Ke, Y.-C.; Chen, P.-T. Innovation Resistance and Resource Allocation Strategy of Medical Information Digitalization. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Burmann, A.; Tischler, M.; Faßbach, M.; Schneitler, S.; Meister, S. The Role of Physicians in Digitalizing Health Care Provision: Web-Based Survey Study. JMIR Med. Inform. 2021, 9, e31527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bogumil-Uçan, S.; Klenk, T. Varieties of health care digitalization: Comparing advocacy coalitions in Austria and Germany. Rev. Policy Res. 2021, 38, 478–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zanutto, O. Digital transformation of care for older people. Int. J. Care Caring 2021, 5, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alauddin, M.S.; Baharuddin, A.S.; Mohd Ghazali, M.I. The Modern and Digital Transformation of Oral Health Care: A Mini Review. Healthcare 2021, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alterazi, H.A. Towards Reaping the Promotions of Big Data in Healthcare Services. Int. Trans. J. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schmidt-Kaehler, S.; Dadaczynski, K.; Gille, S.; Okan, O.; Schellinger, A.; Weigand, M.; Schaeffer, D. Health Literacy: Germany in the Digital Race to Catch Up Introduction of Technological Innovations is not Sufficient. Gesundheitswesen Bundesverb. Arzte Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes Ger. 2021, 83, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhao, Y.; Canales, J.I. Never the twain shall meet? Knowledge strategies for digitalization in healthcare. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 170, 120923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roth, C.B.; Papassotiropoulos, A.; Brühl, A.B.; Lang, U.E.; Huber, C.G. Psychiatry in the Digital Age: A Blessing or a Curse? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ali, N.A.; NawazTahir, H.; Jabeen, R. Digitalisation provisions for controlling depression in developing countries: Short review. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2021, 71, 127–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alimbaev, A.; Bitenova, B.; Bayandin, M. Information and Communication Technologies in the Healthcare System of the Republic of Kazakhstan: Economic Efficiency and Development Prospects. Montenegrin J. Econ. 2021, 17, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dick, H.; Doth, S.; Ernst, C.; Fischer, S.; Holderried, M. Current developments on digitalization Analysis of quality and economics in healthcare. Urologe 2021, 60, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Alt, R.; Zimmermann, H.-D. The digital transformation of healthcare–An interview with Werner Dorfmeister. Electron. Mark. 2021, 31, 895–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bartosiewicz, A.; Burzyńska, J.; Januszewicz, P. Polish Nurses’ Attitude to e-Health Solutions and Self-Assessment of Their IT Competence. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mussener, U. Digital encounters: Human interactions in mHealth behavior change interventions. Digit Health 2021, 7, 20552076211029776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Naumann, L.; Babitsch, B.; Hübner, U.H. eHealth policy processes from the stakeholders’ viewpoint: A qualitative comparison between Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Health Policy Technol. 2021, 10, 100505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Saetra, H.S.; Fosch-Villaronga, E. Healthcare Digitalisation and the Changing Nature of Work and Society. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zoltan, V.; Borbala, V.; Tamas, P.; Judit, L. Smart & Safe—Digitalisation strategy from a patient safety perspective. Orv. Hetil. 2021, 162, 1876–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hoch, P.; Arets, J. Video Consultation as a Model for the Acceptance of Digital Services in the Healthcare Sector. Beweg. Gesundh. 2021, 37, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. De Vos, J. A critique of digital mental health via assessing the psychodigitalisation of the COVID-19 crisis. Psychother. Polit. Int. 2021, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Beaulieu, M.; Bentahar, O. Digitalization of the healthcare supply chain: A roadmap to generate benefits and effectively support healthcare delivery. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 167, 120717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dang, T.H.; Nguyen, T.A.; Hoang Van, M.; Santin, O.; Tran, O.M.T.; Schofield, P. Patient-Centered Care: Transforming the Health Care System in Vietnam With Support of Digital Health Technology. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e24601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gauthier, P.; Cardot, J.-M. Health care digitalization, the straightest pathway to personalization. Farmacia 2021, 69, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, J.; Qi, L. Crisis Preparedness of Healthcare Manufacturing Firms during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Digitalization and Servitization. Int J Environ. Res Public Health 2021, 18, 5456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mallmann, C.A.; Domroese, C.M.; Schroeder, L.; Engelhardt, D.; Bach, F.; Rueckel, H.; Abramian, A.; Kaiser, C.; Mustea, A.; Faridi, A.; et al. Digital Technical and Informal Resources of Breast Cancer Patients from 2012 to 2020: Questionnaire-Based Longitudinal Trend Study. JMIR Cancer 2021, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Quiros Fons, A. Limitations on conscientious objection in the area of healthcare in europe. Rev. Gen. Derecho Canonico Derecho Ecles. Estado 2021. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kulkarni, P.; Chatterjee, S. Healthcare consumer behaviour: The impact of digital transformation of healthcare on consumer. Cardiometry 2021, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wasmann, J.-W.A.; Lanting, C.P.; Huinck, W.J.; Mylanus, E.A.M.; van der Laak, J.W.M.; Govaerts, P.J.; Swanepoel, D.W.; Moore, D.R.; Barbour, D.L. Computational Audiology: New Approaches to Advance Hearing Health Care in the Digital Age. Ear Hear. 2021, 42, 1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kanungo, R.P.; Gupta, S. Financial inclusion through digitalisation of services for well-being. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 167, 120721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fernandez-Luque, L.; Al Herbish, A.; Al Shammari, R.; Argente, J.; Bin-Abbas, B.; Deeb, A.; Dixon, D.; Zary, N.; Koledova, E.; Savage, M.O. Digital Health for Supporting Precision Medicine in Pediatric Endocrine Disorders: Opportunities for Improved Patient Care. Front. Pediatr. 2021, 9, 715705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wilson, A.; Saeed, H.; Pringle, C.; Eleftheriou, I.; Bromiley, P.A.; Brass, A. Artificial intelligence projects in healthcare: 10 practical tips for success in a clinical environment. BMJ Health CARE Inform. 2021, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ziadlou, D. Strategies during digital transformation to make progress in achievement of sustainable development by 2030. Leadersh. Health Serv. 2021, 34, 375–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Oh, S.S.; Kim, K.-A.; Kim, M.; Oh, J.; Chu, S.H.; Choi, J. Measurement of Digital Literacy Among Older Adults: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e26145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Knitza, J.; Krusche, M.; Leipe, J. Digital diagnostic support in rheumatology. Z. Rheumatol. 2021, 80, 909–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sergi, D.; Ucal Sari, I. Prioritization of public services for digitalization using fuzzy Z-AHP and fuzzy Z-WASPAS. Complex Intell. Syst. 2021, 7, 841–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rosalia, R.A.; Wahba, K.; Milevska-Kostova, N. How digital transformation can help achieve value-based healthcare: Balkans as a case in point. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021, 4, 100100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. New Study Smart Financing unlocks Billions in Funds for the digital Transformation of the Healthcare System. Gesundh. Qual. 2021, 26, 66–67. [CrossRef]
  60. Prisyazhnaya, N.V.; Pavlov, S.V. Sociohumanitarian knowledge and digitalization of medical education and healthcare. Sotsiologicheskie Issled 2021, 1, 146–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Odone, A.; Gianfredi, V.; Sorbello, S.; Capraro, M.; Frascella, B.; Vigezzi, G.P.; Signorelli, C. The Use of Digital Technologies to Support Vaccination Programmes in Europe: State of the Art and Best Practices from Experts’ Interviews. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Balta, M.; Valsecchi, R.; Papadopoulos, T.; Bourne, D.J. Digitalization and co-creation of healthcare value: A case study in Occupational Health. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 168, 120785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mues, S.; Surges, R. Telemedicine and mobile Healthcare Technologies Digitalization in Epilepsy Care—Needs and Challenges. Z. Epileptol. 2021, 34, 251–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Frick, N.R.J.; Möllmann, H.L.; Mirbabaie, M.; Stieglitz, S. Driving Digital Transformation during a Pandemic: Case Study of Virtual Collaboration in a German Hospital. JMIR Med. Inform. 2021, 9, e25183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Dendere, R.; Janda, M.; Sullivan, C. Are we doing it right? We need to evaluate the current approaches for implementation of digital health systems. Aust. Health Rev. 2021, 45, 778–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Neumann, M.; Fehring, L.; Kinscher, K.; Truebel, H.; Dahlhausen, F.; Ehlers, J.P.; Mondritzki, T.; Boehme, P. Perspective of German medical faculties on digitization in the healthcare sector and its influence on the curriculum. GMS J. Med. Educ. 2021, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Su, Y.; Hou, F.; Qi, M.; Li, W.; Ji, Y. A Data-Enabled Business Model for a Smart Healthcare Information Service Platform in the Era of Digital Transformation. J. Healthc. Eng. 2021, 2021, 5519891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Masuda, Y.; Zimmermann, A.; Viswanathan, M.; Bass, M.; Nakamura, O.; Yamamoto, S. Adaptive enterprise architecture for the digital healthcare industry: A digital platform for drug development. Information 2021, 12, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Frennert, S. Gender blindness: On health and welfare technology, AI and gender equality in community care. Nurs. Inq. 2021, 28, e12419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hasselgren, A.; Hanssen Rensaa, J.-A.; Kralevska, K.; Gligoroski, D.; Faxvaag, A. Blockchain for Increased Trust in Virtual Health Care: Proof-of-Concept Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e28496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kim, H.K.; Lee, C.W. Relationships among Healthcare Digitalization, Social Capital, and Supply Chain Performance in the Healthcare Manufacturing Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Marchant, G.; Bonaiuto, F.; Bonaiuto, M.; Guillet Descas, E. Exercise and Physical Activity eHealth in COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study of Effects on Motivations, Behavior Change Mechanisms, and Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 618362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Malfatti, G.; Racano, E.; Delle Site, R.; Gios, L.; Micocci, S.; Dianti, M.; Molini, P.B.; Allegrini, F.; Ravagni, M.; Moz, M. Enabling teleophthalmology during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Province of Trento, Italy: Design and implementation of a mHealth solution. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Krasuska, M.; Williams, R.; Sheikh, A.; Franklin, B.; Hinder, S.; TheNguyen, H.; Lane, W.; Mozaffar, H.; Mason, K.; Eason, S.; et al. Driving digital health transformation in hospitals: A formative qualitative evaluation of the English Global Digital Exemplar programme. BMJ Health CARE Inform. 2021, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Piccialli, F.; Giampaolo, F.; Prezioso, E.; Camacho, D.; Acampora, G. Artificial intelligence and healthcare: Forecasting of medical bookings through multi-source time-series fusion. Inf. Fusion 2021, 74, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kyllingstad, N.; Rypestøl, J.O.; Schulze-Krogh, A.C.; Tønnessen, M. Asset modification for regional industrial restructuring: Digitalization of the culture and experience industry and the healthcare sector. Reg. Stud. 2021, 55, 1764–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Frasquilho, D.; Matias, R.; Grácio, J.; Sousa, B.; Luís-Ferreira, F.; Leal, J.; Cardoso, F.; Oliveira-Maia, A.J. Protocol for the Implementation and Assessment of “MoodUP”: A Stepped Care Model Assisted by a Digital Platform to Accelerate Access to Mental Health Care for Cancer Patients Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Leone, D.; Schiavone, F.; Appio, F.P.; Chiao, B. How does artificial intelligence enable and enhance value co-creation in industrial markets? An exploratory case study in the healthcare ecosystem. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 129, 849–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kwon, I.-W.G.; Kim, S.-H.; Martin, D. Integrating Social Determinants of Health to Precision Medicine through Digital Transformation: An Exploratory Roadmap. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sim, S.S.; Yip, M.Y.T.; Wang, Z.; Tan, A.C.S.; Tan, G.S.W.; Cheung, C.M.G.; Chakravarthy, U.; Wong, T.Y.; Teo, K.Y.C.; Ting, D.S.W. Digital Technology for AMD Management in the Post-COVID-19 New Normal. Asia-Pac. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 10, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Christie, H.L.; Boots, L.M.M.; Hermans, I.; Govers, M.; Tange, H.J.; Verhey, F.R.J.; de Vugt, M. Business Models of eHealth Interventions to Support Informal Caregivers of People With Dementia in the Netherlands: Analysis of Case Studies. JMIR Aging 2021, 4, e24724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Eberle, C.; Löhnert, M.; Stichling, S. Effectiveness of Disease-Specific mHealth Apps in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021, 9, e23477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Popkova, E.G.; Giyazov, A. Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering in Fight against the Virus Threat: Perspectives of Increasing Quality Based on Digitalization and Industry 4.0. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2021, 15, 291–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Reich, C.; Meder, B. Digital health highlights 2020 Digitalization in the year of the pandemic. Kardiologe 2021, 15, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hanrieder, T.; Maray, E.M. Digitalizing Community Health Work: A Struggle over the Values of Global Health Policy. Hist. Soc. Res.-Hist. Soz. 2021, 46, 136–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Aleksashina, A.A.; Bezuglov, S.V.; Fomicheva, L.M.; Grigoriev, A.V.; Katlishin, O.I.; Barinov, S. Innovations in the Management System of the Process of Taking Medicines by Patients Based on Digitalization. J. Pharm. Res. Int. 2021, 33, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Haase, C.B.; Bearman, M.; Brodersen, J.; Hoeyer, K.; Risor, T. ‘You should see a doctor’, said the robot: Reflections on a digital diagnostic device in a pandemic age. Scand. J. Public Health 2021, 49, 33–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mishra, A.; Gowrav, M.P.; Balamuralidhara, V.; Reddy, K.S. Health in Digital World: A Regulatory Overview in United States. J. Pharm. Res. Int. 2021, 33, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kokshagina, D.O. Managing shifts to value-based healthcare and value digitalization as a multi-level dynamic capability development process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 172, 121072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Loch, T.; Witzsch, U.; Reis, G. Digital transformation in urology-opportunity, risk or necessity? Urologe 2021, 60, 1125–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Cajander, Å.; Hedström, G.; Leijon, S.; Larusdottir, M. Professional decision making with digitalisation of patient contacts in a medical advice setting: A qualitative study of a pilot project with a chat programme in Sweden. BMJ Open 2022, 11, e054103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Botrugno, C. Information and Communication Technologies in Healthcare: A New Geography of Right to Health. Riv. Filos. Dirit.-J. Leg. Philos. 2021, 10, 163–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jacquemard, T.; Doherty, C.P.; Fitzsimons, M.B. The anatomy of electronic patient record ethics: A framework to guide design, development, implementation, and use. BMC Med. Ethics 2021, 22, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Behnke, M.; Valik, J.K.; Gubbels, S.; Teixeira, D.; Kristensen, B.; Abbas, M.; van Rooden, S.M.; Gastmeier, P.; van Mourik, M.S.M.; Network, P. Information technology aspects of large-scale implementation of automated surveillance of healthcare-associated infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, S29–S39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Peltoniemi, T.; Suomi, R.; Peura, S.; Lahteenoja, M.N.Y. Electronic prescription as a driver for digitalization in Finnish pharmacies. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Glock, H.; Nymberg, V.M.; Bolmsjö, B.B.; Holm, J.; Calling, S.; Wolff, M.; Pikkemaat, M. Attitudes, Barriers, and Concerns Regarding Telemedicine Among Swedish Primary Care Physicians: A Qualitative Study. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021, 14, 9237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Weitzel, E.C.; Quittschalle, J.; Welzel, F.D.; Loebner, M.; Hauth, I.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. E-Mental Health and healthcare apps in Germany. Nervenarzt 2021, 92, 1121–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sullivan, C.; Wong, I.; Adams, E.; Fahim, M.; Fraser, J.; Ranatunga, G.; Busato, M.; McNeil, K. Moving Faster than the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Rapid, Digital Transformation of a Public Health System. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2021, 12, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Luca, M.M.; Mustea, L.; Taran, A.; Stefea, P.; Vatavu, S. Challenges on Radical Health Redesign to Reconfigure the Level of e-Health Adoption in EU Countries. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 728287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Negro-Calduch, E.; Azzopardi-Muscat, N.; Krishnamurthy, R.S.; Novillo-Ortiz, D. Technological progress in electronic health record system optimization: Systematic review of systematic literature reviews. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2021, 152, 104507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Werutsky, G.; Barrios, C.H.; Cardona, A.F.; Albergaria, A.; Valencia, A.; Ferreira, C.G.; Rolfo, C.; de Azambuja, E.; Rabinovich, G.A.; Sposetti, G.; et al. Perspectives on emerging technologies, personalised medicine, and clinical research for cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, E488–E500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Piasecki, J.; Walkiewicz-Zarek, E.; Figas-Skrzypulec, J.; Kordecka, A.; Dranseika, V. Ethical issues in biomedical research using electronic health records: A systematic review. Med. Health Care Philos. 2021, 24, 633–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Broenneke, J.B.; Hagen, J.; Kircher, P.; Matthies, H. Digitized healthcare in 2030-a possible scenario. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. 2021, 64, 1285–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Faure, S.; Napieralsk, J.; Cebelieu, T. The connected pharmacy, from today to tomorrow. Actual. Pharm. 2021, 60, 34–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ghaleb, E.A.A.; Dominic, P.D.D.; Fati, S.M.; Muneer, A.; Ali, R.F. The Assessment of Big Data Adoption Readiness with a Technology–Organization–Environment Framework: A Perspective towards Healthcare Employees. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Verket, M.; Ickrath, M.; Haizmann, M.; Geldhauser, R.; Vite, S.; Bitzer, B.; Mueller-Wieland, D. Precision medicine using the electronic diabetes health record. Diabetologe 2021, 17, 807–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lenz, S. “More like a support tool”: Ambivalences around digital health from medical developers’ perspective. Big Data Soc. 2021, 8, 2053951721996733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. De Sutter, E.; Coopmans, B.; Vanendert, F.; Dooms, M.; Allegaert, K.; Borry, P.; Huys, I. Clinical Research in Neonates: Redesigning the Informed Consent Process in the Digital Era. Front. Pediatr. 2021, 9, 724431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gevko, V.; Vivchar, O.; Sharko, V.; Radchenko, O.; Budiaiev, M.; Tarasenko, O. Cloud Technologies In Business Management. Financ. Credit Act.-Probl. Theory Pract. 2021, 4, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. El Majdoubi, D.; El Bakkali, H.; Sadki, S. SmartMedChain: A Blockchain-Based Privacy-Preserving Smart Healthcare Framework. J. Healthc. Eng. 2021, 2021, 4145512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Thakur, A.; Soklaridis, S.; Crawford, A.; Mulsant, B.; Sockalingam, S. Using Rapid Design Thinking to Overcome COVID-19 Challenges in Medical Education. Acad. Med. 2021, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Persson, J.; Rydenfält, C. Why Are Digital Health Care Systems Still Poorly Designed, and Why Is Health Care Practice Not Asking for More? Three Paths Toward a Sustainable Digital Work Environment. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e26694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zippel-Schultz, B.; Palant, A.; Eurlings, C.; Ski, F.C.; Hill, L.; Thompson, D.R.; Fitzsimons, D.; Dixon, L.J.; Brandts, J.; Schuett, K.A.; et al. Determinants of acceptance of patients with heart failure and their informal caregivers regarding an interactive decision-making system: A qualitative study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e046160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Lam, K.; Purkayastha, S.; Kinross, J.M. The Ethical Digital Surgeon. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e25849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Manzeschke, A. Digitalization and organizational ethics. Scenarios from an ethical and philosophy of technology point of view. Ethik Med. 2021, 33, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dyda, A.; Fahim, M.; Fraser, J.; Kirrane, M.; Wong, I.; McNeil, K. Managing the Digital Disruption Associated with COVID-19-Driven Rapid Digital Transformation in Brisbane, Australia. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2021, 12, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Beckmann, M.; Dittmer, K.; Jaschke, J.; Karbach, U.; Köberlein-Neu, J.; Nocon, M.; Rusniok, C.; Wurster, F.; Pfaff, H. Electronic patient record and its effects on social aspects of interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows in hospitals (eCoCo): A mixed methods study protocol. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Numair, T.; Harrell, D.T.; Huy, N.T.; Nishimoto, F.; Muthiani, Y.; Nzou, S.M.; Lasaphonh, A.; Palama, K.; Pongvongsa, T.; Moji, K.; et al. Barriers to the Digitization of Health Information: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study in Kenya and Lao PDR Using a Cloud-Based Maternal and Child Registration System. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Xiroudaki, S.; Schoubben, A.; Giovagnoli, S.; Rekkas, D.M. Dry Powder Inhalers in the Digitalization Era: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Droste, W.; Wieczorek, M. Advance of digitalization for specialized care? Working conditions of the care experts in ostomy, continence and wounds during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Coloproctology 2021, 43, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lee, J.Y.; Irisboev, I.O.; Ryu, Y.-S. Literature Review on Digitalization in Facilities Management and Facilities Management Performance Measurement: Contribution of Industry 4.0 in the Global Era. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Giovagnoli, M.R.; Ciucciarelli, S.; Castrichella, L.; Giansanti, D. Artificial Intelligence in Digital Pathology: What Is the Future? Part 2: An Investigation on the Insiders. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Daguenet, E.; Magne, N. Use of telehealth services in the oncology setting: Daily routine and during sanitary crisis. Bull. Cancer 2021, 108, 627–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Hubmann, M.; Paetzmann-Sietas, B.; Morbach, H. Telemedicine and digital files-Where do we stand? Opportunities and challenges by the implementation into clinical and practice routines. Monatsschr. Kinderheilkd. 2021, 169, 711–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Vikhrov, I.; Abdurakhimov, Z.; Ashirbaev, S. The Use of Big Data in Healthcare: Lessons for Developing Countries from Uzbekistan. Health Probl. Civiliz. 2021, 15, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Jahn, H.K.; Jahn, I.H.J.; Behringer, W.; Lyttle, M.D.; Roland, D.; On behalf of Paediatric Emergency Research United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI). Ireland A survey of mHealth use from a physician perspective in paediatric emergency care in the UK and Ireland. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2021, 180, 2409–2418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Low, S.T.H.; Sakhardande, P.G.; Lai, Y.F.; Long, A.D.S.; Kaur-Gill, S. Attitudes and Perceptions toward Healthcare Technology Adoption among Older Adults in Singapore: A Qualitative Study. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 588590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Levasluoto, J.; Kohl, J.; Sigfrids, A.; Pihlajamaki, J.; Martikainen, J. Digitalization as an Engine for Change? Building a Vision Pathway towards a Sustainable Health Care System by Using the MLP and Health Economic Decision Modelling. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Verma, A.; Agarwal, G.; Gupta, A.K.; Sain, M. Novel Hybrid Intelligent Secure Cloud Internet of Things Based Disease Prediction and Diagnosis. Electronics 2021, 10, 3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Leung, P.P.L.; Wu, C.H.; Kwong, C.K.; Ip, W.H.; Ching, W.K. Digitalisation for optimising nursing staff demand modelling and scheduling in nursing homes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 164, 120512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Weber, S.; Heitmann, K.U. Interoperability in healthcare: Also prescribed for digital health applications (DiGA). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. 2021, 64, 1262–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Hogervorst, S.; Adriaanse, M.; Brandt, H.; Vervloet, M.; van Dijk, L.; Hugtenburg, J. Feasibility study of a digitalized nurse practitioner-led intervention to improve medication adherence in type 2 diabetes patients in Dutch primary care. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021, 7, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Khan, I.H.; Javaid, M. Big Data Applications in Medical Field: A Literature Review. J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 2021, 06, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Cherif, E.; Bezaz, N.; Mzoughi, M. Do personal health concerns and trust in healthcare providers mitigate privacy concerns? Effects on patients’ intention to share personal health data on electronic health records. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 283, 114146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Bingham, G.; Tong, E.; Poole, S.; Ross, P.; Dooley, M. A longitudinal time and motion study quantifying how implementation of an electronic medical record influences hospital nurses’ care delivery. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2021, 153, 104537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Broich, K.; Lobker, W.; Lauer, W. Digitization of the healthcare system: The BfArM’s contribution to the development of potential. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. 2021, 64, 1292–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Klemme, I.; Richter, B.; De Sabbata, K.; Wrede, B.; Vollmer, A.L. A Multi-Directional and Agile Academic Knowledge Transfer Strategy for Healthcare Technology. Front Robot AI 2021, 8, 789827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Dillenseger, A.; Weidemann, M.L.; Trentzsch, K.; Inojosa, H.; Haase, R.; Schriefer, D.; Voigt, I.; Scholz, M.; Akgün, K.; Ziemssen, T. Digital Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wangler, J.; Jansky, M. The national health portal: Development opportunities and potential uses with special consideration of the general practitioner’s perspective. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. 2021, 64, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kuhn, S.; Huettl, F.; Deutsch, K.; Kirchgaessner, E.; Huber, T.; Kneist, W. Surgical Education in the Digital Age—Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Robotics in the Medical School. Zentralbl. Chir. 2021, 146, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Aldekhyyel, R.N.; Almulhem, J.A.; Binkheder, S. Usability of Telemedicine Mobile Applications during COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: A Heuristic Evaluation of Patient User Interfaces. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Christlein, D.; Kast, J.; Baumhauer, M. Current developments in healthcare information technology Impact on structured reporting. Radiologe 2021, 61, 986–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Bergier, H.; Duron, L.; Sordet, C.; Kawka, L.; Schlencker, A.; Chasset, F.; Arnaud, L. Digital health, big data and smart technologies for the care of patients with systemic autoimmune diseases: Where do we stand? Autoimmun. Rev. 2021, 20, 102864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Sitges-Maciá, E.; Bonete-López, B.; Sánchez-Cabaco, A.; Oltra-Cucarella, J. Effects of e-Health Training and Social Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers of People with Dementia—A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Rani, R.; Kumar, R.; Mishra, R.; Sharma, S.K. Digital health: A panacea in COVID-19 crisis. J. Fam. Med. Prim. CARE 2021, 10, 62–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Fredriksen, E.; Thygesen, E.; Moe, C.E.; Martinez, S. Digitalisation of municipal healthcare collaboration with volunteers: A case study applying normalization process theory. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Caixeta, M.C.B.F.; Fabricio, M.M. Physical-digital model for co-design in healthcare buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 34, 101900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Gupta, M.; Soeny, K. Algorithms for rapid digitalization of prescriptions. Vis. Inform. 2021, 5, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Dobson, R.; Whittaker, R.; Wihongi, H.; Andrew, P.; Armstrong, D.; Bartholomew, K.; Sporle, A.; Wells, S. Patient perspectives on the use of health information. N. Z. Med. J. 2021, 134, 48–62. [Google Scholar]
  150. Choi, K.; Gitelman, Y.; Leri, D.; Deleener, M.E.; Hahn, L.; O’Malley, C.; Lang, E.; Patel, N.; Jones, T.; Emperado, K.; et al. Insourcing and scaling a telemedicine solution in under 2 weeks: Lessons for the digital transformation of health care. Healthc. J. Deliv. Sci. Innov. 2021, 9, 100568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Müller-Wirtz, L.M.; Volk, T. Big Data in Studying Acute Pain and Regional Anesthesia. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Sembekov, A.; Tazhbayev, N.; Ulakov, N.; Tatiyeva, G.; Budeshov, Y. Digital modernization of Kazakhstan’s economy in the context of global trends. Econ. Ann.-XXI 2021, 187, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Aulenkamp, J.; Mikuteit, M.; Löffler, T.; Schmidt, J. Overview of digital health teaching courses in medical education in Germany in 2020. GMS J. Med. Educ. 2021, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Paul, K.T.; Janny, A.; Riesinger, K. Austria’s Digital Vaccination Registry: Stakeholder Views and Implications for Governance. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Lemmen, C.; Simic, D.; Stock, S. A Vision of Future Healthcare: Potential Opportunities and Risks of Systems Medicine from a Citizen and Patient Perspective—Results of a Qualitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Golz, C.; Peter, K.A.; Zwakhalen, S.M.G.; Hahn, S. Technostress Among Health Professionals—A Multilevel Model and Group Comparisons between Settings and Professions. Inform. Health Soc. Care 2021, 46, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Tarikere, S.; Donner, I.; Woods, D. Diagnosing a healthcare cybersecurity crisis: The impact of IoMT advancements and 5G. Bus. Horiz. 2021, 64, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Li, T.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, L.; Feng, C. Artificial intelligence medical platform and clinical care of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease based on microprocessor. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2021, 82, 103879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Rouge-Bugat, M.-E.; Beranger, J. Evolution and impact of digital technology in the general practitioner-patient relationship. Case of the cancer patient. Bull. Acad. Natl. Med. 2021, 205, 822–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Iodice, F.; Romoli, M.; Giometto, B.; Clerico, M.; Tedeschi, G.; Bonavita, S.; Leocani, L.; Lavorgna, L.; Digital Technologies, W.; Social Media Study Group of the Italian Society of, N. Stroke and digital technology: A wake-up call from COVID-19 pandemic. Neurol. Sci. 2021, 42, 805–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Kulzer, B. How do people with diabetes benefit from big data and artificial intelligence? Diabetologe 2021, 17, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Khosla, S.; Tepie, M.F.; Nagy, M.J.; Kafatos, G.; Seewald, M.; Marchese, S.; Liwing, J. The Alignment of Real-World Evidence and Digital Health: Realising the Opportunity. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 2021, 55, 889–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Dantas, E.; Nogaroli, R. The Rise of Robotics and Artificial in the Ligence in Healthcare: New Challenges for the Doctrine of Informed Consent. Med. LAW 2021, 40, 15–61. [Google Scholar]
  164. Gaur, L.; Afaq, A.; Singh, G.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Role of artificial intelligence and robotics to foster the touchless travel during a pandemic: A review and research agenda. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 4079–4098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Khodadad-Saryazdi, A. Exploring the telemedicine implementation challenges through the process innovation approach: A case study research in the French healthcare sector. Technovation 2021, 107, 102273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Bellavista, P.; Torello, M.; Corradi, A.; Foschini, L. Smart Management of Healthcare Professionals Involved in COVID-19 Contrast with SWAPS. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Laukka, E.; Polkki, T.; Heponiemi, T.; Kaihlanen, A.-M.; Kanste, O. Leadership in Digital Health Services: Protocol for a Concept Analysis. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2021, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Singh, R.P.; Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Kataria, R.; Singhal, S. Cloud Computing in Solving Problems of COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 2021, 6, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Patalano, R.; De Luca, V.; Vogt, J.; Birov, S.; Giovannelli, L.; Carruba, G.; Pivonello, C.; Stroetmann, V.; Triassi, M.; Colao, A.; et al. An Innovative Approach to Designing Digital Health Solutions Addressing the Unmet Needs of Obese Patients in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K.; Meilianti, S.; Khatri, B.; Yi, W.; Azzopardi, L.M.; Acosta Gómez, J.; Gülpınar, G.; Bennara, K.; Uzman, N. Digital Health in Pharmacy Education: Preparedness and Responsiveness of Pharmacy Programmes. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Mues, S.; Surges, R. Research and development of telemedical applications and mobile health technologies in epilepsy Survey in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Z. Epileptol. 2021, 34, 253–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Bosch-Capblanch, X.; O’Donnell, D.; Krause, L.K.; Auer, C.; Oyo-Ita, A.; Samba, M.; Matsinhe, G.; Garba, A.B.; Rodríguez, D.; Zuske, M.; et al. Researching, co-creating and testing innovations in paper-based health information systems (PHISICC) to support health workers’ decision-making: Protocol of a multi-country, transdisciplinary, mixed-methods research programme in three sub-Saharan countries. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2021, 19, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Jaboyedoff, M.; Rakic, M.; Bachmann, S.; Berger, C.; Diezi, M.; Fuchs, O.; Frey, U.; Gervaix, A.; Glucksberg, A.S.; Grotzer, M.; et al. SwissPedData: Standardising hospital records for the benefit of paediatric research. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2021, 151, w30069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Nadhamuni, S.; John, O.; Kulkarni, M.; Nanda, E.; Venkatraman, S.; Varma, D.; Balsari, S.; Gudi, N.; Samantaray, S.; Reddy, H.; et al. Driving digital transformation of comprehensive primary health services at scale in India: An enterprise architecture framework. BMJ Glob. Health 2021, 6, e005242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Hertling, S.; Loos, F.M.; Graul, I. Telemedicine as a Therapeutic Option in Sports Medicine: Results of a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study among Physicians and Patients in Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 7110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Khan, I.S.; Ahmad, M.O.; Majava, J. Industry 4.0 and sustainable development: A systematic mapping of triple bottom line, Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Mun, S.K.; Wong, K.H.; Lo, S.-C.B.; Li, Y.; Bayarsaikhan, S. Artificial Intelligence for the Future Radiology Diagnostic Service. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2021, 7, 614258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Xi, X.; Wei, S.; Lin, K.L.; Zhou, H.; Wang, K.; Zhou, H.; Li, Z.; Nan, N.; Qiu, L.; Hu, F.; et al. Digital Technology, Knowledge Level, and Food Safety Governance: Implications for National Healthcare System. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 753950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Weichert, J.; Welp, A.; Scharf, J.L.; Dracopoulos, C.; Becker, W.-H.; Gembicki, M. The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Automation in the Fields of Gynaecology and Obstetrics—An Assessment of the State of Play. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021, 81, 1203–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Liang, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Shen, D.; Xu, J.; Zheng, X.; Wang, T.; Tang, B.; Lei, J.; Zhang, J. Adoption of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in China during the Past 10 Years: Consecutive Survey Data Analysis and Comparison of Sino-American Challenges and Experiences. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e24813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Williams, R.; Sheikh, A.; Franklin, B.D.; Krasuska, M.; Nguyen, H.T.; Hinder, S.; Lane, W.; Mozaffar, H.; Mason, K.; Eason, S.; et al. Using Blueprints to promote interorganizational knowledge transfer in digital health initiatives-a qualitative exploration of a national change program in English hospitals. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2021, 28, 1431–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Feroz, A.S.; Khoja, A.; Saleem, S. Equipping community health workers with digital tools for pandemic response in LMICs. Arch. Public Health 2021, 79, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Huser, D.; Bon, A.; Anifalaje, A. Uncovering generative mechanisms of information use for project monitoring in humanitarian health management information systems. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2021, 87, e12184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Apostolos, K. Electronic health records and personal data protection: The legal and sociological approach. Arch. Hell. Med. 2021, 38, 394–400. [Google Scholar]
  185. Simsek, P.; Gunduz, A.; Imamoglu, M. Technological Innovations in Emergency Department Services. Eurasian J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 20, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Khamisy-Farah, R.; Furstenau, L.B.; Kong, J.D.; Wu, J.; Bragazzi, N.L. Gynecology Meets Big Data in the Disruptive Innovation Medical Era: State-of-Art and Future Prospects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Egarter, S.; Mutschler, A.; Brass, K. Impact of COVID-19 on digital medical education: Compatibility of digital teaching and examinations with integrity and ethical principles. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2021, 17, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Can, Y.S.; Ersoy, C. Privacy-preserving federated deep learning for wearable IoT-based biomedical monitoring. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. TOIT 2021, 21, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Sung, S.; Hørthe, H.; Svendsen, Ø.V.; van Duinen, A.J.; Salvesen, Ø.; Vandi, A.; Bolkan, H.A. Early evaluation of the transition from an analog to an electronic surgical logbook system in Sierra Leone. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Zoellner, J.P.; Noda, A.H.; McCoy, J.; Roth, C.; Fischer, D.; Bollensen, E.; Henn, K.-H.; Willems, L.M.; Leyer, A.-C.; Schubert-Bast, S.; et al. Attitudes and barriers towards telemedicine in epilepsy care: A survey among neurological practices. Z. Epileptol. 2021, 34, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Oliveira, J.; Azevedo, A.; Ferreira, J.J.; Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M. An insight on B2B Firms in the Age of Digitalization and Paperless Processes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Goudarzi, E.V.; Houshmand, M.; Valilai, O.F.; Ghezavati, V.; Bamdad, S. Equilibrial service composition model in Cloud manufacturing (ESCM) based on non-cooperative and cooperative game theory for healthcare service equipping. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2021, 7, e410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Li, J.-P.O.; Liu, H.; Ting, D.S.J.; Jeon, S.; Chan, R.V.P.; Kim, J.E.; Sim, D.A.; Thomas, P.B.M.; Lin, H.; Chen, Y.; et al. Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2021, 82, 100900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Klimanov, D.; Tretyak, O.; Goren, U.; White, T. Transformation of Value in Innovative Business Models: The Case of Pharmaceutical Market. Foresight Sti Gov. 2021, 15, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Nadav, J.; Kaihlanen, A.-M.; Kujala, S.; Laukka, E.; Hilama, P.; Koivisto, J.; Keskimaki, I.; Heponiemi, T. How to Implement Digital Services in a Way That They Integrate into Routine Work: Qualitative Interview Study among Health and Social Care Professionals. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e31668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Spanakis, P.; Heron, P.; Walker, L.; Crosland, S.; Wadman, R.; Newbronner, E.; Johnston, G.; Gilbody, S.; Peckham, E. Use of the Internet and Digital Devices Among People With Severe Mental Ill Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic Restrictions. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 732735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Polyakov, M.; Kovshun, N. Diffusion of Innovations as a Key Driver of the Digital Economy Development. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2021, 7, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Fristedt, S.; Smith, F.; Grynne, A.; Browall, M. Digi-Do: A digital information tool to support patients with breast cancer before, during, and after start of radiotherapy treatment: An RCT study protocol. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2021, 21, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Mandal, M.; Dutta, R. Identity-based outsider anonymous cloud data outsourcing with simultaneous individual transmission for IoT environment. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2021, 60, 102870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Ozdemir, V. Digital Is Political: Why We Need a Feminist Conceptual Lens on Determinants of Digital Health. OMICS- J. Integr. Biol. 2021, 25, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Eberle, C.; Stichling, S. Clinical Improvements by Telemedicine Interventions Managing Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Meta-review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e23244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Iakovleva, T.; Oftedal, E.; Bessant, J. Changing Role of Users-Innovating Responsibly in Digital Health. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Von Solodkoff, M.; Strumann, C.; Steinhaeuser, J. Acceptance of Care Offers for exclusive Remote Treatment Illustrated by the Telemedical Model Project “docdirekt” with a Mixed-Methods Design. Gesundheitswesen 2021, 83, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Khuntia, J.; Ning, X.; Stacey, R. Digital Orientation of Health Systems in the Post-COVID-19 “New Normal” in the United States: Cross-sectional Survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e30453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Ochoa, J.G.D.; Csiszár, O.; Schimper, T. Medical recommender systems based on continuous-valued logic and multi-criteria decision operators, using interpretable neural networks. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2021, 21, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Masłoń-Oracz, A.; Ojiambo, J.; Kevin, O. Digital Economy as a Driver of Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Africa—Case Study. In Research and Innovation Forum 2020: Disruptive Technologies in Times of Change; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 605–616. [Google Scholar]
  207. Abrahams, M.; Matusheski, N.V. Personalised nutrition technologies: A new paradigm for dietetic practice and training in a digital transformation era. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2020, 33, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Agnihothri, S.; Cui, L.; Delasay, M.; Rajan, B. The value of mHealth for managing chronic conditions. Health Care Manag. Sci. 2020, 23, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Bukowski, M.; Farkas, R.; Beyan, O.; Moll, L.; Hahn, H.; Kiessling, F.; Schmitz-Rode, T. Implementation of eHealth and AI integrated diagnostics with multidisciplinary digitized data: Are we ready from an international perspective? Eur. Radiol. 2020, 30, 5510–5524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Chiang, D.-L.; Huang, Y.-T.; Chen, T.-S.; Lai, F.-P. Applying time-constraint access control of personal health record in cloud computing. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2020, 14, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Cobelli, N.; Chiarini, A. Improving customer satisfaction and loyalty through mHealth service digitalization: New challenges for Italian pharmacists. TQM J. 2020, 32, 1541–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Crawford, A.; Serhal, E. Digital Health Equity and COVID-19: The Innovation Curve Cannot Reinforce the Social Gradient of Health. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e19361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Do Nascimento, M.G.; Iorio, G.; Thome, T.G.; Medeiros, A.A.M.; Mendonca, F.M.; Campos, F.A.; David, J.M.; Stroele, V.; Dantas, M.A.R. Covid-19: A Digital Transformation Approach to a Public Primary Healthcare Environment. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), Rennes, France, 6–9 June 2020; IEEE: Rennes, France; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  214. Geiger, M.F.; Wilhelmy, S.; Schmidt, M.; Firsching, R.; Groß, D.; Clusmann, H. Current Practice of Neurosurgical Teleconsultation in Germany. J. Neurol. Surg. Part Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 2020, 81, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Gochhait, S.; Singh, T.; Bende, A.; Thapliyal, M.; Vemulapalli, H.; Shukla, G.; Ghosh, D.; Chinta, D. Implementation of EHR using Digital Transformation: A study on Telemedicine. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET), Belgaum, India, 5–7 June 2020; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  216. Kernebeck, S.; Busse, T.S.; Böttcher, M.D.; Weitz, J.; Ehlers, J.; Bork, U. Impact of mobile health and medical applications on clinical practice in gastroenterology. World J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 26, 4182–4197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Klinker, K.; Wiesche, M.; Krcmar, H. Digital Transformation in Health Care: Augmented Reality for Hands-Free Service Innovation. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 22, 1419–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  218. Krasuska, M.; Williams, R.; Sheikh, A.; Franklin, B.D.; Heeney, C.; Lane, W.; Mozaffar, H.; Mason, K.; Eason, S.; Hinder, S.; et al. Technological Capabilities to Assess Digital Excellence in Hospitals in High Performing Health Care Systems: International eDelphi Exercise. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e17022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Leigh, S.; Ashall-Payne, L.; Andrews, T. Barriers and Facilitators to the Adoption of Mobile Health Among Health Care Professionals From the United Kingdom: Discrete Choice Experiment. JMIR MHealth UHealth 2020, 8, e17704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Minssen, T.; Mimler, M.; Mak, V. When Does Stand-Alone Software Qualify as a Medical Device in the European Union?—The Cjeu’s Decision in Snitem and What It Implies for the Next Generation of Medical Devices. Med. Law Rev. 2020, 28, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Mueller, M.; Knop, M.; Niehaves, B.; Adarkwah, C.C. Investigating the Acceptance of Video Consultation by Patients in Rural Primary Care: Empirical Comparison of Preusers and Actual Users. JMIR Med. Inform. 2020, 8, e20813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Nadarzynski, T.; Bayley, J.; Llewellyn, C.; Kidsley, S.; Graham, C.A. Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled chatbots, video consultations and live webchats as online platforms for sexual health advice. BMJ Sex. Reprod. Health 2020, 46, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Pekkarinen, S.; Hasu, M.; Melkas, H.; Saari, E. Information ecology in digitalising welfare services: A multi-level analysis. Inf. Technol. People 2021, 34, 1697–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. SHAPES Secure Cloud Platform for HealthCare Solutions and Services. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Cyber Warfare, Online, 25–26 June 2020.
  225. Salamah, Y.; Asyifa, R.D.; Afifah, T.Y.; Maulana, F.; Asfarian, A. Thymun: Smart mobile health platform for the autoimmune community to improve the health and well-being of autoimmune sufferers in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 2020 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 24–26 June 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  226. Stephanie, L.; Sharma, R.S. Digital health eco-systems: An epochal review of practice-oriented research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Sultana, M.; Hossain, A.; Laila, F.; Taher, K.A.; Islam, M.N. Towards developing a secure medical image sharing system based on zero trust principles and blockchain technology. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2020, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Moro Visconti, R.; Morea, D. Healthcare digitalization and pay-for-performance incentives in smart hospital project financing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  229. Yousaf, K.; Mehmood, Z.; Awan, I.A.; Saba, T.; Alharbey, R.; Qadah, T.; Alrige, M.A. A comprehensive study of mobile-health based assistive technology for the healthcare of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Health Care Manag. Sci. 2020, 23, 287–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Asthana, S.; Jones, R.; Sheaff, R. Why does the NHS struggle to adopt eHealth innovations? A review of macro, meso and micro factors. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Astruc, B. Challenges and perspectives in the private practice of psychiatry: The development of tele-psychiatry. Ann. Med. Psychol. 2019, 177, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Baltaxe, E.; Czypionka, T.; Kraus, M.; Reiss, M.; Askildsen, J.E.; Grenkovic, R.; Lindén, T.S.; Pitter, J.G.; Rutten-van Molken, M.; Solans, O.; et al. Digital Health Transformation of Integrated Care in Europe: Overarching Analysis of 17 Integrated Care Programs. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e14956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Caumanns, J. For discussion: The state of digitization of the German healthcare system. Z. Evidenz Fortbild. Qual. Gesundh. 2019, 143, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Diamantopoulos, S.; Karamitros, D.; Romano, L.; Coppolino, L.; Koutkias, V.; Votis, K.; Stan, O.; Campegiani, P.; Martinez, D.M.; Nalin, M. Secure Cross-Border Exchange of Health Related Data: The KONFIDO Approach; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 318–327. [Google Scholar]
  235. Diviani, N.; Fredriksen, E.H.; Meppelink, C.S.; Mullan, J.; Rich, W.; Sudmann, T.T. Where else would I look for it? A five-country qualitative study on purposes, strategies, and consequences of online health information seeking. J. Public Health Res. 2019, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  236. McBride, A. How Will Advances in Technology Put the Customer at the Center of Health Care? 2019. Available online: https://www.ey.com/en_gl/future-health/tech-enabled-change-health-care (accessed on 16 October 2022).
  237. Hatzivasilis, G.; Chatziadam, P.; Petroulakis, N.; Ioannidis, S.; Mangini, M.; Kloukinas, C.; Yautsiukhin, A.; Antoniou, M.; Katehakis, D.G.; Panayiotou, M. Cyber Insurance of Information Systems: Security and Privacy Cyber Insurance Contracts for ICT and Helathcare Organizations. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 24th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), Limassol, Cyprus, 11–13 September 2019; IEEE: Limassol, Cyprus; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  238. Go Jefferies, J.; Bishop, S.; Hibbert, S. Customer boundary work to navigate institutional arrangements around service interactions: Exploring the case of telehealth. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 105, 420–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Kivimaa, P.; Boon, W.; Hyysalo, S.; Klerkx, L. Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1062–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Klocek, A.; Šmahelová, M.; Knapová, L.; Elavsky, S. GPs’ perspectives on eHealth use in the Czech Republic: A cross-sectional mixed-design survey study. BJGP Open 2019, 3, bjgpopen19X101655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Kohl, S.; Schoenfelder, J.; Fügener, A.; Brunner, J.O. The use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in healthcare with a focus on hospitals. Health Care Manag. Sci. 2019, 22, 245–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Kouroubali, A.; Katehakis, D.G. The new European interoperability framework as a facilitator of digital transformation for citizen empowerment. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 94, 103166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Manard, S.; Vergos, N.; Tamayo, S.; Fontane, F. Electronic health record in the era of industry 4.0: The French example. arXiv 2019, arXiv:arXiv190710322. [Google Scholar]
  244. Mende, M. The innovation imperative in healthcare: An interview and commentary. AMS Rev. 2019, 9, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Mishra, S.R.; Lygidakis, C.; Neupane, D.; Gyawali, B.; Uwizihiwe, J.P.; Virani, S.S.; Kallestrup, P.; Miranda, J.J. Combating non-communicable diseases: Potentials and challenges for community health workers in a digital age, a narrative review of the literature. Health Policy Plan. 2019, 34, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Niemelä, R.; Pikkarainen, M.; Ervasti, M.; Reponen, J. The change of pediatric surgery practice due to the emergence of connected health technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 146, 352–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Nittas, V.; Lun, P.; Ehrler, F.; Puhan, M.A.; Mütsch, M. Electronic Patient-Generated Health Data to Facilitate Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Scoping Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e13320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  248. Noor, A. Discovering Gaps in Saudi Education for Digital Health Transformation. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  249. Pape, L.; Schneider, N.; Schleef, T.; Junius-Walker, U.; Haller, H.; Brunkhorst, R.; Hellrung, N.; Prokosch, H.U.; Haarbrandt, B.; Marschollek, M.; et al. The nephrology eHealth-system of the metropolitan region of Hannover for digitalization of care, establishment of decision support systems and analysis of health care quality. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2019, 19, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  250. Patrício, L.; Teixeira, J.G.; Vink, J. A service design approach to healthcare innovation: From decision-making to sense-making and institutional change. AMS Rev. 2019, 9, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Russo Spena, T.; Cristina, M. Practising innovation in the healthcare ecosystem: The agency of third-party actors. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2019, 35, 390–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Rydenfält, C.; Persson, J.; Erlingsdottir, G.; Johansson, G. eHealth Services in the Near and Distant Future in Swedish Home Care Nursing. CIN Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2019, 37, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Savikko, J.; Rauta, V. Implementing eHealth in Kidney Transplantation in Finland. Transplant. Proc. 2019, 51, 464–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Wangdahl, J.M.; Dahlberg, K.; Jaensson, M.; Nilsson, U. Psychometric validation of Swedish and Arabic versions of two health literacy questionnaires, eHEALS and HLS-EU-Q16, for use in a Swedish context: A study protocol. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e029668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Watson, H.A.; Tribe, R.M.; Shennan, A.H. The role of medical smartphone apps in clinical decision-support: A literature review. Artif. Intell. Med. 2019, 100, 101707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Weigand, M.; Koester-Steinebach, I. For discussion: What potential does digitization hold for patient safety? Z. Evidenz Fortbild. Qual. Gesund. 2019, 144, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Zanutto, A. ‘Two clicks and I’m in!’ Patients as co-actors in managing health data through a personal health record infrastructure. Health Inform. J. 2019, 25, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Goh, W.; Jane, L.Y.W.; Aziz, A.F.A.; Phua, Y.X. CHARM: Adopting Digitalization in Community Health Assessment and Review on Mobile. In Proceedings of the 2018 Fourth International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication & Automation (ICACCA), Subang Jaya, Malaysia, 26–28 October 2018; IEEE: Subang Jaya, Malaysia; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  260. Kayser, L.; Karnoe, A.; Furstrand, D.; Batterham, R.; Christensen, K.B.; Elsworth, G.; Osborne, R.H. A Multidimensional Tool Based on the eHealth Literacy Framework: Development and Initial Validity Testing of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ). J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  261. Poss-Doering, R.; Kunz, A.; Pohlmann, S.; Hofmann, H.; Kiel, M.; Winkler, E.C.; Ose, D.; Szecsenyi, J. Utilizing a Prototype Patient-Controlled Electronic Health Record in Germany: Qualitative Analysis of User-Reported Perceptions and Perspectives. JMIR Form. Res. 2018, 2, e10411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Khatoon, A.; Umadevi, V. Integrating OAuth and Aadhaar with e-Health care System. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd IEEE International Conference on Recent Trends in Electronics, Information & Communication Technology (RTEICT), Bangalore, India, 18–19 May 2018; IEEE: Bangalore, India; pp. 1681–1686. [Google Scholar]
  263. Melchiorre, M.G.; Papa, R.; Rijken, M.; van Ginneken, E.; Hujala, A.; Barbabella, F. eHealth in integrated care programs for people with multimorbidity in Europe: Insights from the ICARE4EU project. Health Policy 2018, 122, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Ngwenyama, O.; Klein, S. Phronesis, argumentation and puzzle solving in IS research: Illustrating an approach to phronetic IS research practice. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2018, 27, 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Öberg, U.; Orre, C.J.; Isaksson, U.; Schimmer, R.; Larsson, H.; Hörnsten, Å. Swedish primary healthcare nurses’ perceptions of using digital eHealth services in support of patient self-management. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2018, 32, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Parkin, C.G.; Homberg, A.; Hinzmann, R. 10th Annual Symposium on Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose, 27–29 April 2017, Warsaw, Poland. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2018, 20, 68–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  267. Tuzii, J. Healthcare information technology in Italy, critiques and suggestions for European digitalization. Pharm. Policy Law 2018, 19, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Brockes, C.; Grischott, T.; Dutkiewicz, M.; Schmidt-Weitmann, S. Evaluation of the education “Clinical Telemedicine/e-Health” in the curriculum of medical students at the University of Zurich. Telemed. E-Health 2017, 23, 899–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Cavusoglu, L.; Demirbag-Kaplan, M. Health commodified, health communified: Navigating digital consumptionscapes of well-being. Eur. J. Mark. 2017, 51, 2054–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Cerdan, J.; Catalan-Matamoros, D.; Berg, S.W. Online communication in a rehabilitation setting: Experiences of patients with chronic conditions using a web portal in Denmark. Patient Educ. Couns. 2017, 100, 2283–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Coppolino, L.; D’Antonio, S.; Romano, L.; Sgaglione, L.; Staffa, M. Addressing Security Issues in the Eheatlh Domain Relying on SIEM Solutions. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Turin, Italy, 4–8 July 2017; Volume 2, pp. 510–515. [Google Scholar]
  272. Geiger, S.; Gross, N. Does hype create irreversibilities? Affective circulation and market investments in digital health. Mark. Theory 2017, 17, 435–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Giacosa, E.; Ferraris, A.; Bresciani, S. Exploring voluntary external disclosure of intellectual capital in listed companies: An integrated intellectual capital disclosure conceptual model. J. Intellect. Cap. 2017, 18, 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Hong, G.E.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, J.A.; Yumnam, S.; Raha, S.; Saralamma, V.V.G.; Heo, J.D.; Lee, S.J.; Kim, E.H.; Won, C.K.; et al. Korean Byungkyul—Citrus platymamma Hort.et Tanaka flavonoids induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, regulating MMP protein expression in Hep3B hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Int. J. Oncol. 2017, 50, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  275. Huesers, J.; Huebner, U.; Esdar, M.; Ammenwerth, E.; Hackl, W.O.; Naumann, L.; Liebe, J.D. Innovative Power of Health Care Organisations Affects IT Adoption: A bi-National Health IT Benchmark Comparing Austria and Germany. J. Med. Syst. 2017, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Parviainen, P.; Tihinen, M. Tackling the digitalization challenge: How to benefit from digitalization in practice. IJISPM Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2017, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Paulin, A. Data Traffic Forecast in Health 4.0. In Health 4.0: How Virtualization and Big Data Are Revolutionizing Healthcare; Thuemmler, C., Bai, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 39–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Schobel, J.; Pryss, R.; Schickler, M.; Reichert, M. Towards Patterns for Defining and Changing Data Collection Instruments in Mobile Healthcare Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 30th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), Thessaloniki, Greek, 24–27 June 2017; IEEE: Thessaloniki, Greek; pp. 101–102. [Google Scholar]
  279. Seddon, J.J.J.M.; Currie, W.L. Healthcare financialisation and the digital divide in the European Union: Narrative and numbers. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 1084–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Thorseng, A.A.; Grisot, M. Digitalization as institutional work: A case of designing a tool for changing diabetes care. Inf. Technol. People 2017, 30, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Amato, F.; Colace, F.; Greco, L.; Moscato, V.; Picariello, A. Semantic processing of multimedia data for e-government applications. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 2016, 32, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Bongaerts, R.; Henn, H.; Khare, A. The Pac-Man Principle in the Healthcare Market. In Phantom Ex Machina; Khare, A., Stewart, B., Schatz, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Swizerland, 2017; pp. 175–184. ISBN 978-3-319-44467-3. [Google Scholar]
  283. Cucciniello, M.; Lapsley, I.; Nasi, G. Managing health care in the digital world: A comparative analysis. Health Serv. Manag. Res. 2016, 29, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  284. Evans, R.S. Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future. Yearb. Med. Inform. 2016, 25, S48–S61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Faried, A.; Sutiono, A.B.; Djuwantono, T.; Arifin, M.Z.; Wirakusumah, F.F.; Yuniarto, S.A.; Hariyanto, H.; Jayadi, Y.T. Mother and children health reporting system: Innovative information system application in the rural West Bandung Area, Indonesia, by using multimodal communications systems. In Proceedings of the 2015 4th International Conference on Instrumentation, Communications, Information Technology, and Biomedical Engineering (ICICI-BME), Bandung, Indonesia, 2–3 November 2015; IEEE: Bandung, Indonesia; pp. 202–207. [Google Scholar]
  286. Harjumaa, M.; Saraniemi, S.; Pekkarinen, S.; Lappi, M.; Similä, H.; Isomursu, M. Feasibility of digital footprint data for health analytics and services: An explorative pilot study. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2016, 16, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  287. Mattsson, T. Quality Registries in Sweden, Healthcare Improvements and Elderly Persons with Cognitive Impairments. Eur. J. Health Law 2016, 23, 453–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  288. Mazor, I.; Heart, T.; Even, A. Simulating the impact of an online digital dashboard in emergency departments on patients length of stay. J. Decis. Syst. 2016, 25, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  289. Anwar, M.; Joshi, J.; Tan, J. Anytime, anywhere access to secure, privacy-aware healthcare services: Issues, approaches and challenges. Health Policy Technol. 2015, 4, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Kostkova, P. Grand Challenges in Digital Health. Front. Public Health 2015, 3, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  291. Laur, A. Fear of e-Health Records implementation? Med. Leg. J. 2015, 83, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Sultan, N. Reflective thoughts on the potential and challenges of wearable technology for healthcare provision and medical education. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Nudurupati, S.S.; Bhattacharya, A.; Lascelles, D.; Caton, N. Strategic sourcing with multi-stakeholders through value co-creation: An evidence from global health care company. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 166, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  294. Sanders, K.; Sánchez Valle, M.; Viñaras, M.; Llorente, C. Do we trust and are we empowered by “Dr. Google”? Older Spaniards’ uses and views of digital healthcare communication. Public Relat. Rev. 2015, 41, 794–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Cook, D.A.; West, C.P. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: A stepwise approach. Med. Educ. 2012, 46, 943–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Khan, M.F.F.; Sakamura, K. Context-aware access control for clinical information systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 18 March 2012; IEEE: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2012; pp. 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  297. Thomas, P. Bhoomi, Gyan Ganga, e-governance and the right to information: ICTs and development in India. Telemat. Inform. 2009, 26, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Buccoliero, L.; Calciolari, S.; Marsilio, M. A methodological and operativeframework for the evaluation of ane-health project. Int. J. Health Plann. Manag. 2008, 23, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  299. Hikmet, N.; Bhattacherjee, A.; Menachemi, N.; Kayhan, V.O.; Brooks, R.G. The role of organizational factors in the adoption of healthcare information technology in Florida hospitals. Health Care Manag. Sci. 2008, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  300. Zdravković, S. Telemedicine: Perspectives and expectations. Arch. Oncol. 2008, 16, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Kitsios, F.; Kamariotou, M. Mapping new service development: A review and synthesis of literature. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 682–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Hsu, J.; Huang, J.; Kinsman, J.; Fireman, B.; Miller, R.; Selby, J.; Ortiz, E. Use of e-Health services between 1999 and 2002: A growing digital divide. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2005, 12, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Fang, Y. Visualizing the structure and the evolving of digital medicine: A scientometrics review. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Duplaga, M. The acceptance of e-health solutions among patients with chronic respiratory conditions. Telemed. E-Health 2013, 19, 683–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  305. Chauhan, S.; Jaiswal, M. A meta-analysis of e-health applications acceptance. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2017, 30, 295–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Holden, R.J.; Karsh, B.-T. The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care. J. Biomed. Inform. 2010, 43, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  307. WHO. A Health Telematics Policy in Support of WHO’s Health-For-All Strategy for Global Health Development, Report of the WHO Group Consultation on Health Telematics; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997; pp. 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  308. Krupinski, E.A.; Antoniotti, N.; Bernard, J. Utilization of the American Telemedicine Association’s Clinical Practice Guidelines. Telemed. E-Health 2013, 19, 846–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  309. Sachpazidis, I. Image and Medical Data Communication Protocols for Telemedicine and Teleradiology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Technische Universität, Berlin, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  310. Van’t Haaff, C. Virtually On-sight. Just Can. Dr. 2009, 22, 22. [Google Scholar]
  311. Moffatt, J.J.; Eley, D.S. Barriers to the up-take of telemedicine in Australia–a view from providers. Rural Remote Health 2011, 11, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Craig, J.; Petterson, V. Introduction to the practice of telemedicine. J. Telemed. Telecare 2005, 11, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. Heinzelmann, P.J.; Lugn, N.E.; Kvedar, J.C. Telemedicine in the future. J. Telemed. Telecare 2005, 11, 384–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Wootton, R.; Geissbuhler, A.; Jethwani, K.; Kovarik, C.; Person, D.A.; Vladzymyrskyy, A.; Zanaboni, P.; Zolfo, M. Long-running telemedicine networks delivering humanitarian services: Experience, performance and scientific output. Bull. World Health Organ. 2012, 90, 341–347D. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Jennett, P.A.; Hall, L.A.; Hailey, D.; Ohinmaa, A.; Anderson, C.; Thomas, R.; Young, B.; Lorenzetti, D.; Scott, R.E. The socio-economic impact of telehealth: A systematic review. J. Telemed. Telecare 2003, 9, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Wootton, R. Telemedicine support for the developing world. J. Telemed. Telecare 2008, 14, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Qaddoumi, I.; Bouffet, E. Supplementation of a Successful Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Telemedicine-Based Twinning Program by E-Mails. Telemed. E-Health 2009, 15, 975–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Stanberry, B. Legal and ethical aspects of telemedicine. J. Telemed. Telecare 2006, 12, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The diagram for the first phase of the selection process.
Figure 1. The diagram for the first phase of the selection process.
Ijerph 20 03407 g001
Figure 2. The diagram of the article selection process.
Figure 2. The diagram of the article selection process.
Ijerph 20 03407 g002
Figure 3. Number of articles and citations per publication by year.
Figure 3. Number of articles and citations per publication by year.
Ijerph 20 03407 g003
Figure 4. Bibliometric map of the digital transformation and healthcare.
Figure 4. Bibliometric map of the digital transformation and healthcare.
Ijerph 20 03407 g004
Figure 5. Network visualisation of keywords per year.
Figure 5. Network visualisation of keywords per year.
Ijerph 20 03407 g005
Figure 6. Heat map of keywords.
Figure 6. Heat map of keywords.
Ijerph 20 03407 g006
Figure 7. The map of number of articles per method for each year.
Figure 7. The map of number of articles per method for each year.
Ijerph 20 03407 g007
Table 1. Previous Bibliographic Reviews.
Table 1. Previous Bibliographic Reviews.
ReferenceKeywordsMethodologyResults
1.Kraus, S., et al., Digital transformation in healthcare: Analyzing the current state-of-research [9]Digital* AND healthcare2 Databases
(EBSCO)—130 articles
(ELSEVIER Science Direct and Springer Link)—340 articles
The article assesses how multiple stakeholders implement digital technologies for management and business purposes.
2.Marques, Isabel C.P. and Ferreira, Joao J.M. Digital transformation in the area of health: a systematic review of 45 years of evolution. Health and Technology. 2020, 10, pp. 575–586. [8]Digital AND Health AND Information System AND Management AND Hospital1 Database
(Scopus)—749 articles
Explore the potential of existing digital solutions to improve the quality and safety of healthcare and analyse the emerging trend of digital medicine.
3.Kolasa, K. and G. Kozinski, How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review [10]Mhealth
Mobile health
Telemedicine
Health app
Wearables
3 Databases
(Pubmed, Scopus and Science Direct)—34 articles
It proposed five recommendations for the generation of evidence to be considered in developing digital health solutions and suggestions for adopting the methodological approach in DHIs’ pricing and reimbursement.
4.Mehdi Hosseinzadeh, Omed Hassan Ahmed, Ali Ehsani, Aram Mahmood Ahmed, Hawkar kamaran Hama. The impact of knowledge on e-health: a systematic literature review of the advanced systems [11]Knowledge health
Knowledge e-health
6 Databases
(Google Scholar, Public Libraries, Science Direct, Springer Link, Web of Science and IEEE Xplore)—132 articles
Knowledge is considered one of the important research directions for many purposes in e-health.
5.Shah Nazir, Yasir Ali, Naeem Ullah and Ivan Garcia—Magarino. Internet of Things for Healthcare Using Effects of Mobile Computing: A Systematic Literature Review, Hindawi, Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, Volume 2019. [12](Internet of things OR IoT) AND (Smart hospitals) AND (Healthcare) AND (Mobile Computing) OR “Internet of things OR IoT” and “Smart hospitals” and “healthcare” and Mobile computing.”5 Databases
(Science Direct, Springer, IEEE, Taylor and Francis, Hindawi)—116 articles
Mobile computing extends the functionality of IoT in the healthcare environment by bringing massive support in the form of mobile health (m-health). In this research, a systematic literature review protocol is proposed to study how mobile computing assists IoT applications in healthcare, contributes to the current and future research of IoT in the healthcare system, brings privacy and security to health IoT devices, and affects the IoT in the healthcare system. Furthermore, the paper intends to study the impacts of mobile computing on IoT in the healthcare environment or intelligent hospitals.
6.Chiranjeev Sanyal, Paul Stolee, Don Husereau. Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review, PLoS ONE [13]Assistive technology
Socially assistive robots
Mobile health
Mobile robot
Smart home system
Telecare
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wander prevention systems
Mobile locator devices
Gps
Location-based technology
Mobile apps
Mobile application
Cell phone
Web-based
Internet
M-health
M-health
eHealth
e-health
older adult
elderly
seniors
older patient
cost-effective
cost-utility
economic evaluation
5 Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, NHS EED, and PsycINFO)—14 articlesE-health technologies can be used to provide resource-efficient patient-oriented care. This review identified the growing use of these technologies in managing chronic diseases in study populations, including older adults.
7.Kampmeijer, R., et al., The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: a systematic literature review. [14](“aged”[MeSH Terms] OR “aged”[All Fields] OR “elderly”[All Fields] OR “old”[All Fields] OR “senior”[All Fields] OR “seniors”[All Fields]) AND (“health promotion”[MeSH Terms] OR “health promotion”[All Fields] OR “promotion”[All Fields] OR “primary prevention”[MeSH Terms] OR “primary prevention”[All Fields] OR “prevention”[All Fields]) AND (“telemedicine”[MeSH Terms] OR “telemedicine”[All Fields] OR “telemedicine”[All Fields] OR “telehealth”[All Fields] OR “telehealth”[All Fields] OR “m-health”[All Fields] OR “m-health”[All Fields] OR “e-health”[All Fields] OR “e-health”[All Fields])1 Database (PubMed)—45 articlesE-health and m-health tools are used by older adults in diverse health promotion programmes but also outside formal programmes to monitor and improve their health.
8.Iyawa, G.E., M. Herselman, and A. Botha, Digital health innovation ecosystems: From a systematic literature review to conceptual framework [1]Digital health
Innovation
Digital ecosystems
4 Databases
(ACM, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore and SpringerLink)—65 articles
The study identified components of digital health, components creation relevant to the healthcare domain, and components of digital ecosystems.
9.Gagnon, M.-P., et al., m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. [15]m-Health
healthcare
professionals and
adoption
4 Databases
(PubMed, Embase, Cinhal, PsychInfo)—33 articles
The Main perceived adoption factors to m-health at the individual, organisational, and contextual levels were the following: perceived usefulness and ease of use, design and technical concerns, cost, time, privacy and security issues, familiarity with the technology, risk-benefit assessment, and interaction with others (colleagues, patients, and management).
10.Leslie W., Kim, A. and D. Szeto, The evidence for the economic value of ehealth in the united states today: a systematic review. J Int Soc Telemed EHealth, 2016. [16](telemedicine OR “Mobile Health” OR “Health, Mobile” OR mHealth OR mHealths OR Telehealth OR eHealth) AND (“Cost-Benefit Analysis” OR “Analyses, Cost-Benefit” OR “Analysis, Cost-Benefit” OR “Cost-Benefit Analyses” OR “Cost Benefit Analysis” OR “Analyses, Cost Benefit” OR “Analysis, Cost Benefit” OR “Cost Benefit Analyses” OR “Cost Effectiveness” OR “Effectiveness, Cost” OR “Cost-Benefit Data” OR “Cost Benefit Data” OR “Data, Cost-Benefit” OR “Cost-Utility Analysis” OR “Analyses, Cost-Utility” OR “Analysis, Cost-Utility” OR “Cost Utility Analysis” OR “Cost-Utility Analyses” OR “Economic Evaluation” OR “Economic Evaluations” OR “Evaluation, Economic” OR “Evaluations, Economic” OR “Marginal Analysis” OR “Analyses, Marginal” OR “Analysis, Marginal” OR “Marginal Analyses” OR “Cost Benefit” OR “Costs and Benefits” OR “Benefits and Costs” OR “CostEffectiveness Analysis” OR “Analysis, CostEffectiveness” OR “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis”)
Virtual healthcare
2 Databases
(PubMed and The Cochrane Library) -20 articles
The goal of this study is to evaluate the published economic evidence for
e-health in the United States, analyse how well it supports the growth of the current e-health environment, and suggest what evidence is needed.
11.Hu, Y. and G. Bai, A Systematic Literature Review of Cloud Computing in Ehealth. Health Informatics—[17](Cloud) AND (eHealth OR “electronic health” OR e-health)5 Databases
(ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Inspec, ISI Web of Science and Springer)—44 articles
With the unique superiority of the cloud in big data storage and processing ability, a hybrid cloud platform with mixed access control and security protection mechanisms will be the main research area for developing a citizen-centred home-based healthcare system.
12.Boonstra, A., A. Versluis, and J.F.J. Vos, Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 2014. 14(1): p. 370. [18]“Electronic Health Record*” + implement* + hospital*
“Electronic Health Record*” + implement* + “healthcare”
“Electronic Health Record*” + implement* + clinic*
“Electronic Patient Record*” + implment* + hospital*
“Electronic Patient Record*” + implement* + “healthcare”
“Electronic Patient Record*” + implement* + clinic*
“Electronic Medical Record*” + implement* + hospital*
“Electronic Medical Record*” + implement* + “healthcare”
“Electronic Medical Record*” + implement* + clinic*
“Computeri?ed Patient Record*” + implement* + hospital*
“Computeri?ed Patient Record*” + implement* + “health care”
“Computeri?ed Patient Record*” + implement* + clinic*
“Electronic Health Care Record*” + implement* + hospital*
“Electronic Health Care Record*” + implement* + “health care”
“Electronic Health Care Record*” + implement* + clinic*
“Computeri?ed Physician Order Entry” + implement* + hospital*
“Computeri?ed Physician Order Entry” + implement* + “health care”
“Computeri?ed Physician Order Entry” + implement* + clinic*
3 Databases
(Web of Knowledge, EBSCO and the Cochrane Library)—21 articles
Although EHR systems are anticipated to affect hospitals’ performance positively, their implementation is complex.
13.Pagliari, C., et al., What Is eHealth (4): A Scoping Exercise to Map the Field. J Med Internet Res, 2005. 7(1) [19]“Ehealth OR e-health OR e*health”8 Databases
(Medline [PubMed], the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], the Science Citation Index [SCI], the Social Science Citation Index [SSCI], the Cochrane Library Database (including Dare, Central, NHS Economic Evaluation Database [NHS EED], Health Technology Assessment [HTA] database, NHS EED bibliographic) and Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (ISTP, now known as ISI Proceedings)—387 articles
Definitions of e-health vary concerning the functions, stakeholders, contexts, and theoretical issues targeted.
Table 2. Search Strategy.
Table 2. Search Strategy.
DatabaseSearch withinKeywordsNo Sources
1.ScopusArticle title, Abstract, Keywords(Digital transformation or digitalization) AND (Ehealth or e-health or mhealth or m-health or healthcare) AND (health economics)408
Article title, Abstract, Keywords(Digital transformation) AND (health)1.152
2.Science DirectArticle title(Digital transformation) AND (health)2.142
3.PubMedArticle title, Abstract(Digital transformation or digitalization) AND (Ehealth or e-health or mhealth or m-health or healthcare) AND (health economics)978
Article title(Digital transformation) AND (health)1.167
Total5.847
Table 3. Concept Matrix Table.
Table 3. Concept Matrix Table.
No.AuthorYearMethodSampleData AnalysisConcepts
Information Technology in HealthEducation Impact of
E-Health
Acceptance of
E-Health
TelemedicineSecurity of E-Health
1Kesavadev, J, et al., [20]2021Case Study Χ
2Attila, SZ et al., [21]2021Survey Χ
3Malachynska, M et al., [22]2021Case Study Χ
4Lu, WC et al., [23]2021Survey Χ
5Burmann, A et al., [24]2021Case Study Χ
6Bogumil-Ucan, S et al., [25]2021Case Study Χ
7Zanutto, O [26]2021Survey Χ
8Alauddin, MS; et al., [27]2021Survey Χ
9Alterazi, HA [28]2021Survey Χ
10Schmidt-Kaehler, S et al., [29]2021Case Study Χ
11Zhao, Y et al., [30]2021Case Study ΧΧ
12Roth, CB et al., [31]2021Systematic Literature Review Χ Χ
13Ali, NA et al., [32]2021Case Study Χ
14Alimbaev, A et al., [33]2021Case Study Χ
15Dick, H et al., [34]2021Systematic Literature Review Χ Χ
16Alt, R et al., [35]2021Surveya Vice President-Χ
17Bartosiewicz, A et al., [36]2021Survey Χ Χ
18Mussener, U [37]2021Survey Χ
19Naumann, L et al., [38]2021Case Study59 qualitative telephone interviewsThe findings hinted at five priorities of e-health policy making: strategy, consensus-building,
decision-making, implementation and evaluation that emerged from the stakeholders’ perception of the
e-health policy.
Χ
20Saetra, HS et al., [39]2021Case Study Χ
21Zoltan, V et al., [40]2021Survey Χ Χ
22Hoch, P et al., [41]2021Survey Χ
23De Vos, J [42]2021Survey Χ
24Beaulieu, M et al., [43]2021Survey Χ
25Dang, TH et al., [44]2021Survey ΧΧ Χ
26Kraus, S et al., [9]2021Systematic Literature Review Χ ΧΧ
27Gauthier, P et al., [45]2021Survey Χ
28Zhang, JS et al., [46]2021Survey Χ
29Mallmann, CA et al., [47]2021Survey513 breast cancer patients from 2012 to 2020Statistical analysisΧ
30Fons, AQ [48]2021Survey Χ
31Chatterjee, S et al., [49]2021SurveyConsumers of different age groups & people working in the healthcare sector (including doctors)Qualitative analysisΧΧ
32Wasmann, JWA et al., [50]2021Survey Χ
33Kanungo, RP et al., [51]2021Survey Χ
34Fernandez-Luque, L et al., [52]2021Survey Χ
35Wilson, A et al., [53]2021Survey Χ
36Ziadlou, D [54]2021SurveyUS health care leadersQualitative analysisΧΧ
37Oh, SS et al., [55]2021Survey ΧΧ
38Knitza, J et al., [56]2021Survey Χ
39Sergi, D et al., [57]2021Survey Χ
40Rosalia, RA et al., [58]2021Case Study Χ
41[Anonymous] [59]2021Survey Χ
42Prisyazhnaya, NV et al., [60]2021Survey Χ
43Odone, A et al. [61]2021Case StudyVariety of participantsQualitative
and quantitative analysis
Χ
44Balta, M et al., [62]2021Case Study Χ Χ
45Mues, S et al., [63]2021Survey Χ
46Frick, NRJ et al., [64]2021Case StudyPhysicians (nine female and seven male experts)Thematic analysisΧ
47Dendere, R et al., [65]2021Survey Χ
48Neumann, M et al., [66]2021SurveyThe dean or
the most senior academic individual responsible for the
medical curriculum development
Descriptive statistics in Microsoft Excel (Version
16.38)
Χ
49Su, Y et al., [67]2021Case Study Χ
50Masuda, Y et al., [68]2021Survey Χ
51Frennert, S [69]2021Survey ΧΧ
52Hasselgren, A et al., [70]2021Survey Χ Χ
53Kim, HK et al., [71]2021Survey Χ Χ
54Marchant, G et al., [72]2021Survey569 adultsStatistical analysisΧ
55Malfatti, G et al., [73]2021Survey Χ
56Krasuska, M et al., [74]2021Case Study628 interviews, observed 190 meetings and analysed 499 documentsThematical analysisΧ
57Piccialli, F et al., [75]2021Survey Χ
58Kyllingstad, N et al., [76]2021Survey Χ
59Frasquilho, D et al., [77]2021Case Study Χ
60Leone, D et al., [78]2021Case Study Χ
61Kwon, IWG et al., [79]2021Report Χ
62Sim, SS et al., [80]2021Systematic Literature Review Χ
63Christie, HL et al., [81]2021Case StudyExperts (n = 483) in the fields of e-health, dementia, and caregiving were contacted via emailQualitative analysisΧ
64Eberle, C et al., [82]2021Survey2887 patientsQualitative analysisΧ
65Popkova, EG et al., [83]2021Survey Χ
66Reich, C et al., [84]2021Survey Χ
67Hanrieder, T et al., [85]2021Survey Χ
68Aleksashina, AA et al., [86]2021Survey Χ Χ
69Haase, CB et al., [87]2021Survey Χ
70Mishra, A et al., [88]2021Survey Χ
71Kokshagina, O [89]2021Survey Χ
72Loch, T et al., [90]2021Survey Χ
73Cajander, A et al., [91]2021Survey17 interviews with nurses (n = 9) and physicians (n = 8)Thematical analysisΧ Χ
74Botrugno, C [92]2021Survey Χ
75Jacquemard, T et al., [93]2021Survey Χ
76Behnke, M et al., [94]2021Survey Χ
77Peltoniemi, T et al., [95]2021Case Study Χ
78Glock, H et al., [96]2021Survey Χ
79Weitzel, EC et al., [97]2021Survey Χ
80Sullivan, C et al., [98]2021Case Study Χ
81Luca, MM et al., [99]2021Survey Χ
82Negro-Calduch, E et al., [100]2021Systematic Literature Review Χ
83Werutsky, G et al.,Denninghoff, V et al., [101]2021Survey Χ
84Piasecki, J et al., [102]2021Survey ΧΧ
85Broenneke, JB et al., [103]2021Survey Χ
86Faure, S et al., [104]2021Survey Χ
87Ghaleb, EAA et al., [105]2021Survey Χ Χ
88Verket, M et al., [106]2021Survey Χ
89Lenz, S [107]2021Survey15 interviews with persons from different areas of digital health careTheoretical samplingΧ
90De Sutter, E et al., [108]2021Survey31 healthcare professionals activeQualitative analysisΧ
91Gevko, V et al., [109]2021Survey Χ
92El Majdoubi, D et al., [110]2021Survey Χ
93Thakur, A et al., [111]2021Case Study Χ
94Persson, J et al., [112]2021Survey Χ
95Zippel-Schultz, B et al., [113]2021Survey49 patients and 33 of their informal caregivers.Qualitative analysis Χ
96Lam, K et al., [114]2021Survey Χ
97Manzeschke, A [115]2021Survey Χ
98Dyda, A et al., [116]2021Case Study Χ Χ
99Beckmann, M et al., [117]2021Case StudyVariety of participantsQualitative
and quantitative analysis
Χ
100Numair, T et al., [118]2021SurveyKenya: Interviewees included nurses, community health workers, and operators hired exclusively for data entry in the WIRE system.
Laos: As no operators were hired in Lao PDR, interviewees included nurses, doctors, and midwives who used the WIRE system daily.
(20 healthcare workers in Kenya & Laos PDR)
Qualitative
and quantitative analysis
Χ
101Xiroudaki, S et al., [119]2021Case Study Χ
102Droste, W et al., [120]2021Survey Χ
103Lee, JY et al., [121]2021Systematic Literature Review Χ
104Giovagnoli, et al., [122]2021Survey Χ
105Daguenet, et al., [123]2021Survey Χ
106Hubmann, et al., [124]2021Survey Χ
107Vikhrov, et al., [125]2021Survey Χ
108Jahn, HK et al., [126]2021Survey198 complete and 45 incomplete survey responses from physiciansStatistical analysisΧ
109Low et al., [127]2021Survey Χ
110Levasluoto, et al., [128]2021Case Study23 interviewsThematical analysisΧ
111Verma, et al., [129]2021Survey Χ
112Leung, PPL et al., [130]2021Case Study Χ
113Weber, S et al., [131]2021Survey Χ
114Hogervorst, S et al., [132]2021SurveyPatients (11), group HCPs (5 + 6), interviews HCPs (4)Thematical analysisΧ
115Khan, ich et al., [133]2021Systematic Literature Review Χ
116Cherif, et al., [134]2021Survey Χ
117Bingham, et al., [135]2021Survey19 registered nursesDescriptive statisticsΧ
118Broich, et al., [136]2021Survey Χ
119Klemme, et al., [137]2021SurveyThe study consisted of 15 semi-structured interviews with academic staff (n = 7 professors and postdoctoral researchers, three female, four male) in the field of intelligent systems and technology in healthcare and staff at practice partners (n = 8 heads of department, two female, six male) in healthcare technology and economy (a hospital, a digital innovation and engineering company and a manufacturer of household appliances) and social institutions (foundations and aid organisations for people with disabilities).Qualitative analysisΧΧ
120Dillenseger, et al., [138]2021Survey Χ
121Wangler, et al., [139]2021Survey Χ
122Kuhn, et al., [140]2021SurveyStudents (35)Qualitative analysis Χ
123Aldekhyyel, et al., [141]2021Survey Χ
124Christlein, et al., [142]2021Survey Χ
125Bergier, et al., [143]2021Survey Χ
126Sitges-Macia, et al., [144]2021Survey Χ
127Rani, et al., [145]2021Survey Χ
128Fredriksen, et al., [146]2021Case StudyHealthcare employees from a volunteer centre and from municipality healthcare units in three municipalitiesQualitative analysisΧ
129Caixeta, et al., [147]2021Survey Χ
130Gupta, et al., [148]2021Survey Χ
131Dobson, et al., [149]2021Survey Χ
132Choi, K et al., [150]2021Survey Χ
133Muller-Wirtz, et al., [151]2021Case Study Χ
134Sembekov, et al., [152]2021Survey Χ
135Aulenkamp, et al., [153]2021Survey ΧΧ
136Paul, et al., [154]2021Survey16 key stakeholdersThematical analysisΧ
137Lemmen, et al., [155]2021Survey62 citizens and 13 patientsQualitative analysisΧ
138Golz, et al., [156]2021Survey Χ
139Tarikere, et al., [157]2021Survey Χ
140Li, et al., [158]2021Case Study Χ
141Rouge-Bugat, et al., [159]2021Case Study Χ
142Iodice, et al., [160]2021Survey Χ
143Kulzer, B [161]2021Survey Χ
144Khosla, et al., [162]2021Survey Χ
145Dantas, et al., [163]2021Survey Χ
146Gaur, et al., [164]2021Survey Χ
147Khodadad-Saryazdi, A [165]2021Case Study ΧΧΧ
148Bellavista, et al., [166]2021Case Study Χ
149Laukka, et al., [167]2021Case Study ΧΧ
150Singh, et al., [168]2021Survey Χ
151Patalano, et al., [169]2021Survey Χ
152Mantel-Teeuwisse, et al., [170]2021Survey Χ
153Mues, et al., [171]2021Survey Χ
154Bosch-Capblanch, et al., [172]2021Survey Χ
155Jaboyedoff, et al., [173]2021Survey336 common data elements (CDEs)Qualitative analysisΧ
156Nadhamuni, et al., [174]2021Survey Χ
157Hertling, et al., [175]2021Survey Χ
158Khan, et al., [176]2021Survey Χ
159Mun, et al., [177]2021Survey Χ Χ
160Xi, et al., [178]2021Survey Χ
161Weichert, et al., M [179]2021Survey Χ
162Liang, et al., [180]2021Survey Χ
163Williams, et al., [181]2021Survey508 interviews, 163 observed meetings, and analysis of 325 documents.Qualitative analysis—Sociotechnical principles, combining deductive and inductive methods Χ
164Feroz, et al., [182]2021Case Study Χ
165Huser, et al., [183]2021Case Study Χ
166Apostolos, K [184]2021Survey Χ
167Simsek, et al., [185]2021Survey Χ Χ
168Khamisy-Farah, et al., [186]2021Survey Χ
169Egarter, et al., [187]2021Case Study Χ
170Can, et al., [188]2021Survey Χ
171Sung, et al., [189]2021Survey278 e-logbook database entries and 379 procedures in the hospital records from 14 users were analysed. Interviews with 12 e-logbook users found overall satisfaction.Statistical analysis Χ Χ
172Zoellner, et al., [190]2021Survey Χ
173Oliveira, et al., [191]2021Case StudyRecipients numbering 151 (21% of the universe) completed the questionnaire: trade (49), industry (41), services (28), health (15), and education (18).Quantitative analysisΧ
174Goudarzi, et al., [192]2021Survey Χ
175Li, et al., [193]2021Survey ΧΧ
176Klimanov, et al., [194]2021Case Study Χ
177Nadav, et al., [195]2021SurveyEight focus group interviews were conducted with 30 health and social care professionalsQualitative analysis Χ
178Spanakis, et al., [196]2021Survey Χ
179Polyakov, et al., [197]2021Survey Χ
180Fristedt, et al., [198]2021SurveyIntervention group (n  =  80) & control group (n  =  80)Data will be coded and manually entered in SPSSΧ
181Mandal, et al., [199]2021Survey Χ
182Ozdemir, V [200]2021Survey Χ
183Eberle, et al., [201]2021Survey Χ
184Iakovleva, et al., [202]2021Case Study Χ
185von Solodkoff, et al., [203]2021SurveyIn the questionnaire, the participants (n = 217). A total of 27 subjects (mean age 51 years, min: 23 years, max: 86 years) participated in the interviews.Statistical analysis Χ
186Khuntia, et al., [204]2021Survey Χ Χ
187Ochoa, et al., [205]2021Survey Χ
188Masłoń-Oracz, et al., [206]2021Case Study X X
189Abrahams, et al., [207]2020Survey XX
190Agnihothri, et al., [208]2020Survey X
191Bukowski, et al., [209]2020Survey X X
192Chiang, et al., [210]2020Survey X X
193Cobelli, et al., [211]2020SurveyPharmacists (82)Qualitative content analysisX
194Crawford, et al., [212]2020Survey X X
195Gjellebæk, et al., [2]2020Case StudyEmployees and middle managersThematic analysisX
196Nascimento, et al., [213]2020Case Study X
197Geiger, et al., [214]2020Case StudySpecialist in neurosurery & resident (296)Statistical AnalysisX X
198Eden, et al., [4]2020SurveyMedical, nursing, allied health, administrative and executive roles (92)Analysis of Cohen’s kappa (k)X X
199Gochhait, et al., [215]2020Case Study X X
200Kernebeck, et al., [216]2020Case Study X
201Klinker, et al., [217]2020SurveyStaff of health care facilities (14)Microsoft HoloLens, Vuzix m100 X
202Krasuska, et al., M.; Williams, R.; Sheikh, A.; Franklin, B. D.; Heeney, C.; Lane, W.; Mozaffar, H.; Mason, K.; Eason, et al., [218]2020SurveyStaff of health care facilities (113)Qualitative analysisX
203Leigh, et al., [219]2020Survey X
204Minssen, et al., [220]2020Survey X
205Mueller, et al., [221]2020Case StudyStaff of health care facilities (20)Qualitative analysisX X
206Nadarzynski, et al., [222]2020Case StudyPatients (257)Statistical analysisX X
207Pekkarinen, et al., [223]2020Case StudyVariety of participants (24)The analytical framework is based on Nardi and O’Day’s five components of information ecology: system, diversity, co-evolution, keystone species, and locality.X
208Rajamäki, et al., [224]2020Survey X
209Salamah, et al., [225]2020Case Study X
210Stephanie, et al., [226]2020Survey X
211Sultana, et al., [227]2020Survey X X
212Visconti, et al., [228]2020Case Study X
213Yousaf et al., [229]2020Case Study X
214Asthana, et al., [230]2019Survey X
215Astruc, B. [231]2019Case Study X X
216Baltaxe, et al., [232]2019Report X
217Caumanns, J. [233]2019Case Study X
218Diamantopoulos, et al., [234]2019Case Study X X
219Diviani, et al., [235]2019SurveyVariety of participants (165)Qualitative analysis X
220EYGM [236]2019Survey X
221Hatzivasilis, et al., [237]2019Survey X
222Go Jefferies, et al., [238]2019Case Study X X
223Kivimaa, P., et al., [239]2019Systematic Literature Review X
224Klocek, A., et al., [240]2019Case StudyVariety of people (153)Statistical analysisX
225Kohl, S., et al., [241]2019Survey X
226Kouroubali, et al., [242]2019Case Study X X
227Manard, et al., [243]2019Case Study X
228Mende M. [244]2019Survey X
229Mishra et al., [245]2019Systematic Literature Review XXX
230Niemelä, et al., [246]2019SurveyHealth professionals, child patients’ parents, and the healthcare industrySystematically analysed according to the process structure (pre-, intra-, post-surgery, and home care).X
231Nittas, V., et al. [247]2019Survey X
232Noor, A. [248]2019Case StudyStudents and Staff in colleges and universitiesQualitative analysis X
233Pape, L., et al. [249]2019Case Study X
234Patrício, et al., [250]2019Survey X
235Russo Spena, T., Cristina, M. [251]2019Survey X
236Rydenfält, C., et al., [252]2019Case StudyVariety of people (264)NVivo 10 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) X
237Savikko, et al., [253]2019Case Study X
238Vial, G [254]2019Systematic Literature Review X
239Wangdahl, J.M., et al., [255]2019Case StudyVariety of people (600)Binary logistic regression analysis X
240Watson, et al., [256]2019Systematic Literature Review X
241Weigand, et al., [257]2019Survey X
242Zanutto, A. [258]2019SurveyStaff of health care facilities (6836)Qualitative analysis X
243Eden, et al., [3]2018Systematic Literature Review X
244Goh, W., et al. [259]2018Survey X
245Kayser, L., et al., [260]2018Survey X
246Poss-Doering, R. et al., [261]2018Case StudyPatients (11) & Doctors (3)Statistical analysisX X X
247Khatoon, et al., [262]2018Survey X X
248Melchiorre, M.G., et al., [263]2018Case Study X
249Ngwenyama, et al., [264]2018Survey X
250Öberg, U.A.-O., et al., [265]2018SurveyPrimary healthcare nurses (20)Qualitative analysis X
251Parkin, et al., [266]2018Report X
252Tuzii, J., [267]2018Case Study X
253Brockes, C., et al., [268]2017SurveyStudents (28)Mann–Whitney U-Test X X
254Cavusoglu, et al., [269]2017Survey X
255Cerdan, et al., [270]2017Case StudyPatients (29)Qualitative analysis X
256Coppolino, et al., [271]2017Survey X
257Geiger, et al., [272]2017Survey X
258Giacosa, et al., [273]2017Survey X
259Hong, et al., [274]2017Survey X
260Hüsers, J., et al., [275]2017Case StudyNurses (534)All data were analysed using R (Version 3.2.1)X
261Parviainen, et al., [276]2017Survey X
262Paulin, A. [277]2017Survey X
263Schobel, J., et al. [278]2017Survey X
264Seddon, et al., [279]2017Survey X
265Thorseng, et al., [280]2017SurveyVariety of participantsQualitative analysisX
266Tuzii, J. [267]2017Case Study X
267Amato, F., et al., [281]2016Survey X
268Bongaerts, et al., [282]2016Survey X
269Cucciniello, et al., [283]2016Survey X
270Evans, R.S. [284]2016Survey X
271Faried, et al., [285]2016Report X
272Harjumaa, M., et al., [286]2016SurveyVarious organisations (12)Interview data was then analysed thematically. X
273Mattsson, T., [287]2016Case Study X
274Mazor, et al., [288]2016Survey X
275Anwar, et al., [289]2015Survey X X
276Kostkova, P., [290]2015Survey X
277Laur, A., [291]2015Survey X
278Sultan, N., [292]2015Survey XX
279Nudurupati, et al., [293]2015Survey X
280Sanders, K., et al., [294]2015SurveyHealthcare professionals (17)Qualitative analysisX
281Cook, et al., [295]2012A Systematic Literature Review X
282Khan, et al., [296]2012Survey X
283Agarwal, R., et al., [5]2010Survey X
284Thomas, et al., [297]2009Case Study X
285Buccoliero, et al., [298]2008Survey X
286Hikmet, et al., [299]2008Case StudyVariety of participantsQuantitive analysisX
287Zdravković, S. [300]2008Survey Χ X
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stoumpos, A.I.; Kitsios, F.; Talias, M.A. Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043407

AMA Style

Stoumpos AI, Kitsios F, Talias MA. Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):3407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043407

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stoumpos, Angelos I., Fotis Kitsios, and Michael A. Talias. 2023. "Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 3407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043407

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop