Cited by 148Health Policy Implementation ScienceTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Implementation Strategies to Enhance the Implementation of eHealth Programs for Patients With Chronic Illnesses: Realist Systematic Review

Open access
Varsi, Cecilie, Solberg Nes, Lise, Kristjansdottir, Olöf Birna, Kelders, Saskia M, Stenberg, Una, Zangi, Heidi Andersen, Børøsund, Elin, Weiss, Karen Elizabeth +5 more·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

Background: There is growing evidence of the positive effects of electronic health (eHealth) interventions for patients with chronic illness, but implementation of such interventions into practice is challenging. Implementation strategies that potentially impact implementation outcomes and implementation success have been identified. Which strategies are actually used in the implementation of eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illness and which ones are the most effective is unclear. Objective: This systematic realist review aimed to summarize evidence from empirical studies regarding (1) which implementation strategies are used when implementing eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illnesses living at home, (2) implementation outcomes, and (3) the relationship between implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and degree of implementation success. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they described implementation strategies used to support the integration of eHealth interventions into practice. Implementation strategies were categorized according to 9 categories defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project: (1) engage consumers, (2) use evaluative and iterative strategies, (3) change infrastructure, (4) adapt and tailor to the context, (5) develop stakeholder interrelationships, (6) use financial strategies, (7) support clinicians, (8) provide interactive assistance, and (9) train and educate stakeholders. Implementation outcomes were extracted according to the implementation outcome framework by Proctor and colleagues: (1) acceptability, (2) adoption, (3) appropriateness, (4) cost, (5) feasibility, (6) fidelity, (7) penetration, and (8) sustainability. Implementation success was extracted according to the study authors’ own evaluation of implementation success in relation to the used implementation strategies. Results: The implementation strategies management support and engagement, internal and external facilitation, training, and audit and feedback were directly related to implementation success in several studies. No clear relationship was found between the number of implementation strategies used and implementation success. Conclusions: This is the first review examining implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and implementation success of studies reporting the implementation of eHealth programs for patients with chronic illnesses living at home. The review indicates that internal and external facilitation, audit and feedback, management support, and training of clinicians are of importance for eHealth implementation. The review also points to the lack of eHealth studies that report implementation strategies in a comprehensive way and highlights the need to design robust studies focusing on implementation strategies in the future. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018085539; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=85539

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 · 10.2196/14255

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • There is limited evidence of actual implementation of digital pain self-management interventions into clinical care after study completion.

    “with subsequent limited evidence of actual implementation into clinical care after study completion [22,28].”

    From Short-Term Findings From Testing EPIO, a Digital Self-Management Program for People Living With Chronic Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results (Implementation Outcomes Reported; page unavailable) say only 3 of 12 included studies reported whether eHealth programs were sustained, supporting limited evidence about continued use. The review covers chronic illnesses broadly, however, and does not establish this specifically for digital pain self-management interventions or for implementation into clinical care after study completion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The viewpoints of policy makers are seldom recorded in scientific publications despite their important role in the outer context of implementation.

    “The viewpoints of policy makers are seldom recorded in scientific publications despite their important role in the outer context of implementation [13-15].”

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
Varsi, C., Solberg Nes, L., Kristjansdottir, O. B., Kelders, S. M., Stenberg, U., Zangi, H. A., Børøsund, E., Weiss, K. E., Stubhaug, A., Asbjørnsen, R. A., Westeng, M., Ødegaard, M., & Eide, H.
Affiliations
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • North-West University (ZA)
  • VID Specialized University (NO)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Varsi, Cecilie
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-09-27
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
e14255
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2976336448
Cited by
148
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd (256574)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • 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
Keywords
digital health interventions, chronic disease, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, implementation success, home care, audit and feedback, facilitation, management support, clinician training, stakeholder engagement, Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, sustainability, fidelity, acceptability, adoption, feasibility, cost, penetration, appropriateness, telemedicine
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Telemedicine

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