Cited by 241Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationElectronic Health Records Systems

Barriers and facilitators of the uptake of digital health technology in cardiovascular care: a systematic scoping review

Open access
Whitelaw, Sera, Pellegrini, Danielle M, Mamas, Mamas A, Cowie, Martin, Van Spall, Harriette G C·2021·European Heart Journal - Digital Health

Abstract

Abstract Digital health technology (DHT) has the potential to revolutionize healthcare delivery but its uptake has been low in clinical and research settings. The factors that contribute to the limited adoption of DHT, particularly in cardiovascular settings, are unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and researchers. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for studies published from inception to May 2020 that reported barriers and/or facilitators of DHT adoption in cardiovascular care. We extracted data on study design, setting, cardiovascular condition, and type of DHT. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake. The search identified 3075 unique studies, of which 29 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies employed: qualitative methods (n = 13), which included interviews and focus groups; quantitative methods (n = 5), which included surveys; or a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (n = 11). Twenty-five studies reported patient-level barriers, most common of which were difficult-to-use technology (n = 7) and a poor internet connection (n = 7). Six studies reported clinician-level barriers, which included increased workload (n = 4) and a lack of integration with electronic medical records (n = 3).Twenty-four studies reported patient-level facilitators, which included improved communication with clinicians (n = 10) and personalized technology (n = 6). Four studies reported clinician-level facilitators, which included approval and organizational support from cardiology departments and/or hospitals (n = 3) and technologies that improved efficiency (n = 3). No studies reported researcher-level barriers or facilitators. In summary, internet access, user-friendliness, organizational support, workflow efficiency, and data integration were reported as important factors in the uptake of DHT by patients and clinicians. These factors can be considered when selecting and implementing DHTs in cardiovascular clinical settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ehjdh/ztab005

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Telemedicine solutions have the potential to be a cost-effective way of providing improved care to patients with cardiovascular disease.

    “Telemedicine solutions have the potential to be a cost-effective way of providing improved care to patients with cardiovascular disease.15,16”

    From Efficacy of a web-based healthcare innovation to advance the quality of life and care of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ACQUIRE-ICD): A randomized controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction says digital health technology can improve outcomes and reduce costs in cardiovascular care, and identifies remote monitoring and virtual visits as applications. The Discussion’s “Institutional support” section reports evidence of cost-effectiveness for digital health technologies overall, but does not establish it specifically for telemedicine solutions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [16]American Medical Association. Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health Adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-02/ama-digital-health-study.pdf (7 July 2020).
  2. [21]Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975. p 913– 927.
  3. [31]World Health Organization. Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311941/9789241550505-eng.pdf?ua=1 (7 January 2021). 31162915
  4. [33]Topol E. Preparing the Healthcare Workforce to Deliver the Digital Future: The Topol Review: An Independent Report on Behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. London, UK: NHS Health Education; 2019.
  5. [42]Christodoulakis C, Asgarian A, Easterbrook S. Barriers to adoption of information technology in healthcare. In: Marcellus M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering. New Jersy, United States. 2017; 66– 75.
  6. [43]American Medical Association. Digital health implementation playbook. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/ama-telehealth-implementation-playbook.pdf (7 January 2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whitelaw, S., Pellegrini, D. M., Mamas, M. A., Cowie, M., & Van Spall, H. G. C.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Faculty of Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ , UK
  • Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University , 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8, Canada
Venue
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
Published
2021-02-04
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
62-74
ISSN
2634-3916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3127649143
Cited by
241
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 13
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Heart Journal - Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • McMaster University Department of Medicine and Women As One Escalator Award
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
digital health technologies, technology adoption, barriers and facilitators, cardiovascular care, patient perspectives, clinician perspectives, internet access, ease of use, workload, electronic health record integration, organizational support, workflow efficiency, clinician-patient communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review