Examining the evidence of the impact of health information technology in primary care: An argument for participatory research with health professionals and patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (10) ◽  
pp. 654-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuelle Bélanger ◽  
Gillian Bartlett ◽  
Martin Dawes ◽  
Charo Rodríguez ◽  
Ifat Hasson-Gidoni
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (38) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Gustavo de Araújo Porto Landsberg

Objetive: This paper aims to discuss e-Health and Primary Care concepts and correlations, considering current context of healthcare and health information technology in Brazil. Methods: Conceptual literature regarding to Primary Care and health information technology was selected and discussed. Results: Brazilian public health system has delivered cost-effective primary care over the last 20 years and recently a similar movement is being observed at private sector. Additionally, there is a expanding adoption of health information technology, which resources can be use to develop all core attributes of Primary Care. Conclusions: The e-Health utilization in Primary Care has potencial to improve health and reduce costs. A clear specific national policy, broad discussion over current regulation and a closer relationship between health professionals and information technology developers are needed to offer cost-effective e-Health aligned to Primary Care atributes.


Medical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Dori A. Cross ◽  
Maria A. Stevens ◽  
Steven B. Spivack ◽  
Genevra F. Murray ◽  
Hector P. Rodriguez ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (01) ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Abraham ◽  
L. L. Novak ◽  
T. L. Reynolds ◽  
A. Gettinger ◽  
K. Zheng

SummaryObjective: To summarize recent research on unintended consequences associated with implementation and use of health information technology (health IT). Included in the review are original empirical investigations published in English between 2014 and 2015 that reported unintended effects introduced by adoption of digital interventions. Our analysis focuses on the trends of this steam of research, areas in which unintended consequences have continued to be reported, and common themes that emerge from the findings of these studies.Method: Most of the papers reviewed were retrieved by searching three literature databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Two rounds of searches were performed: the first round used more restrictive search terms specific to unintended consequences; the second round lifted the restrictions to include more generic health IT evaluation studies. Each paper was independently screened by at least two authors; differences were resolved through consensus development.Results: The literature search identified 1,538 papers that were potentially relevant; 34 were deemed meeting our inclusion criteria after screening. Studies described in these 34 papers took place in a wide variety of care areas from emergency departments to ophthalmology clinics. Some papers reflected several previously unreported unintended consequences, such as staff attrition and patients’ withholding of information due to privacy and security concerns. A majority of these studies (71%) were quantitative investigations based on analysis of objectively recorded data. Several of them employed longitudinal or time series designs to distinguish between unintended consequences that had only transient impact, versus those that had persisting impact. Most of these unintended consequences resulted in adverse outcomes, even though instances of beneficial impact were also noted. While care areas covered were heterogeneous, over half of the studies were conducted at academic medical centers or teaching hospitals. Conclusion: Recent studies published in the past two years represent significant advancement of unintended consequences research by seeking to include more types of health IT applications and to quantify the impact using objectively recorded data and longitudinal or time series designs. However, more mixed-methods studies are needed to develop deeper insights into the observed unintended adverse outcomes, including their root causes and remedies. We also encourage future research to go beyond the paradigm of simply describing unintended consequences, and to develop and test solutions that can prevent or minimize their impact.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supp2) ◽  
pp. 377-384
Author(s):  
Tiffany Zellner Lawrence ◽  
Megan D. Douglas ◽  
Latrice Rollins ◽  
Robina Josiah Willock ◽  
Dexter L. Cooper ◽  
...  

Rulemaking is one of the most important ways the federal government makes public policy. It frequently has significant impact on individuals, communities, and organizations. Yet, few of those directly affected are familiar with the rulemaking process, and even fewer understand how it works. This article describes a case study of the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Disparities Research Health Information Technology (TCC HIT) Policy Project’s approach to health-policy engagement using: 1) social media; and 2) a webinar to educate stakeholders on the rulemaking process and increase their level of meaningful engagement with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) proposed rule public comment submission. The webinar “Paying for Quality: What Is the Impact on Health Equity” was promoted through Twitter and held in June 2016. In total, we posted 19 tweets using two distinct hashtags (#MACRA4Equity, #MACRA2Equity) to raise awareness of the upcoming MACRA proposed rule and its possible effects on health equity. Overall, 252 individuals registered for the webinar, and more than half participated (n=133). Most (67%) registrants reported that health policy was not the primary focus of their current position. Based on information provided in the webinar, 95% agreed that their understanding of the topic improved. By the end of the webinar, 44% of participants indicated that they planned to submit public comments for MACRA, a 12% increase compared with those who planned to submit at the time of registration. The TCC health-policy engagement strategy demonstrates the feasibility of engaging a diverse audience around health policy issues, particularly those who are not typically engaged in policy work. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 2): 377-384. doi:10.18865/ed.29.S2.377


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document