Cited by 114Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

A systematic review of the effects of e‐health on chronically ill patients

Eland‐de Kok, Petra, van Os‐Medendorp, Harmieke, Vergouwe‐Meijer, Aly, Bruijnzeel‐Koomen, Carla, Ros, Wynand·2011·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Aims and objectives. We aimed to investigate whether e‐health is equal to or better than usual face‐to‐face care with regard to outcomes on health, quality of life, patient satisfaction and costs. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature on e‐health in chronically ill patients compared with or as an addition to usual care. Background. Interactive websites on internet are increasingly used to inform and treat patients. This type of contact between patients and health care providers, which is called e‐health, is easily accessible and particularly interesting for chronically ill patients. Design. A systematic review. Methods. We searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, DARE and CENTRAL for articles published between January 2000–July 2009. Results. The search strategy yielded in total 695 possibly relevant references, which resulted in 12 RCTs after application of the in‐ and exclusion criteria. Most of the studies were well designed according to the Cochrane criteria for RCTs. The studies are divided into e‐health vs. usual care and e‐health as addition to usual care. e‐Health consisted of monitoring, treatment instructions, self‐management training and general information and communication between patient and caregiver. Most of the studies showed small to moderate positive effects on health outcomes. Cost‐effectiveness, quality of life and patient satisfaction were rarely investigated in the included studies. Conclusions. e‐Health interventions for chronically ill patients, offered instead of usual care or in addition to usual care, lead to small to moderate positive effects on primary health outcomes. However, the evidence was not fully convincing, because of the limited number of studies available and the methodological limitations. Further research is needed to confirm the cost‐effectiveness of e‐health interventions for patients with chronic diseases. Relevance to clinical practice. e‐Health is a promising tool for treatment and self‐management training of chronically ill patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03743.x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eland‐de Kok, P., van Os‐Medendorp, H., Vergouwe‐Meijer, A., Bruijnzeel‐Koomen, C., & Ros, W.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-27
Volume
20
Issue
21-22
Pages
2997-3010
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W1858955106
Cited by
114
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
e-health, chronic disease, online intervention, self-management education, quality of life, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, usual care comparison, patient-provider communication, health outcomes
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Humans, Internet

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