Cited by 34Health Policy Implementation ScienceElectronic Health Records SystemsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The e-health implementation toolkit: qualitative evaluation across four European countries

Open access
MacFarlane, Anne, Clerkin, Pauline, Murray, Elizabeth, Heaney, David J, Wakeling, Mary, Pesola, Ulla-Maija, Waterworth, Eva Lindh, Larsen, Frank +2 more·2011·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implementation researchers have attempted to overcome the research-practice gap in e-health by developing tools that summarize and synthesize research evidence of factors that impede or facilitate implementation of innovation in healthcare settings. The e-Health Implementation Toolkit (e-HIT) is an example of such a tool that was designed within the context of the United Kingdom National Health Service to promote implementation of e-health services. Its utility in international settings is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the e-HIT in use across four countries--Finland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden. Data were generated using a combination of interview approaches (n = 22) to document e-HIT users' experiences of the tool to guide decision making about the selection of e-health pilot services and to monitor their progress over time. RESULTS: e-HIT users evaluated the tool positively in terms of its scope to organize and enhance their critical thinking about their implementation work and, importantly, to facilitate discussion between those involved in that work. It was easy to use in either its paper- or web-based format, and its visual elements were positively received. There were some minor criticisms of the e-HIT with some suggestions for content changes and comments about its design as a generic tool (rather than specific to sites and e-health services). However, overall, e-HIT users considered it to be a highly workable tool that they found useful, which they would use again, and which they would recommend to other e-health implementers. CONCLUSION: The use of the e-HIT is feasible and acceptable in a range of international contexts by a range of professionals for a range of different e-health systems.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-6-122

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • The eHealth Implementation Toolkit (e-HIT) is aimed specifically at eHealth interventions and has been developed for use by managers and other staff charged with implementing eHealth initiatives.

    “A similar toolkit, the eHealth Implementation Toolkit (e-HIT), is aimed specifically at eHealth interventions and has been developed for use by managers and other staff charged with implementing eHealth initiatives (ie, implementers) [120-122].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacFarlane, A., Clerkin, P., Murray, E., Heaney, D. J., Wakeling, M., Pesola, U.-M., Waterworth, E. L., Larsen, F., Makiniemi, M., & Winblad, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Limerick (IE)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • University Hospital of North Norway (NO)
  • University of Oulu (FI)
Corresponding author
MacFarlane, Anne
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2011-11-19
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
122-122
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135197859
Cited by
34
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ARAN (University of Galway Research Repository) (Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
eHealth implementation, research-practice gap, implementation barriers and facilitators, implementation monitoring, user experience
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Delivery of Health Care, Europe, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Finland, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Medical Informatics Applications, Norway, Pilot Projects, Scotland, Sweden, Program Evaluation, 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