CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Electronic Health Records SystemsInnovation in Digital Healthcare SystemsMedical Coding and Health Information

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discoursing Terminology Standards and Interoperability in relation to the Philippine eHealth Strategy

Open access
Sylim, Patrick G., Lu, Jinky Leilanie, Marcelo, Portia Grace F.·2022·Acta Medica Philippina
DOI 10.47895/amp.v56i1.3937
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background. eHealth is the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for health. It helps in improving the flow of information, through electronic means, in support of the delivery of health services, and the management of health systems. eHealth is used as the strategic context and tool in achieving population health, improved health system status, and socio-economic development goals. Objectives. This study is aimed at looking at the Philippine National eHealth Strategy, particularly the components of Terminology Standards and Interoperability concerning the eHealth strategy in the Philippines, and to assess the barriers and gaps in the integration of these two components. Methods. This study used secondary literature, internet search, Philippine laws, administrative orders, memorandum circulars, and grey literature to discourse terminology standards and interoperability in the Philippine eHealth system, and issues and gaps related to these components that may impede the delivery of Universal Health Coverage in the country. Results. The current Philippine National eHealth strategy includes the following sector governance, legislation, policy and compliance, eHealth solution (i.e., services and applications), strategy and investment, infrastructure (government), human resources, and standards and interoperability. Philippine Health Information Exchange (PHIE) is a software platform in the country that aims to connect many isolated electronic health systems. The proposed interoperability layer across health systems and services in the Philippines includes Patient’s Primary Healthcare Consultation at the Rural Health Unit, health research, legal information, patient healthcare at tertiary hospital, and health insurance claims. The study results showed that issues and gaps related to the interoperability of eHealth in the Philippines include technical issues such as lack of common semantics, lack of an institutional mechanism to regulate EMR, lack of incentives among eHealth providers and stakeholders to adopt standards for interoperability. Conclusion. The effort of the Philippines to achieve interoperability and standards in eHealth goals can be characterized as a work in progress. The government, private sector, physician, patient, and other stakeholders are deemed to continuously develop a shared vision and interoperate under a standardized guide as eHealth is a complex endeavor that covers many aspects.

Overview

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 · 10.47895/amp.v56i1.3937

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Interoperability in Smart City Governance necessitates the alignment of policies and standards among systems and entities, with conformance testing serving as a critical mechanism to validate compliance.

    “Interoperability in Smart City Governance necessitates the alignment of policies and standards among systems and entities, with conformance testing serving as a critical mechanism to validate compliance and facilitate seamless data exchange, integration, and collaboration (Sylim et al., 2022).”

    From Smart city governance and interoperability: enhancing human security in Yogyakarta and Makassar, Indonesia (2025) · cites this paper as Sylim et al., 2022

    The ‘Definition and Components of Interoperability’ section says eHealth systems and providers must agree on exchange practices and meet criteria to be certified for health-information exchange. ‘Organizational Interoperability through Regulation and Ethical Standards’ also links standards and regulation to interoperability. The paper addresses Philippine eHealth, not Smart City Governance, and the passages do not identify conformance testing as the mechanism for validating compliance. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Kierkegaard P. Governance structures impact on eHealth. Health Policy Technol. 2015 Mar; 4(1):39-46.
  2. Mandirola Brieux H, Bhuiyan Masud JH, Kumar Meher S, Kumar V, Portilla F, Indarte S, et al. Challenges and hurdles of ehealth implementation in developing countries. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015; 2016:434-7.
  3. Tobgay S, Wangmo K. Can ICT (Internet) overcome the natural geographical barriers of Bhutan in developing the nation?. Int J Educ Dev using Inf Commun Technol. 2008; 4(4):148-58
  4. Schwamm LH, Rosenthal ES, Hirshberg A, Schaefer PW, Little EA, Kvedar, JC, et al. Virtual TeleStroke support for the emergency department evaluation of acute stroke. Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Nov; 11(11):1193-7.
  5. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 9; 360(15):1477-9.
  6. Prinz L, Cramer M, Englund A. Telehealth: A policy analysis for quality, impact on patient outcomes, and political feasibility. Nurs Outlook; 2008 Jul-Aug; 56(4):152-8.
  7. Liaw S, Kearns R, Taggart J, Frank O, Lane R, Tam M, et al. eHealth and integrated primary health care centres. Int J Integr Care. 2017 Jul; 17(3):A42.
  8. van Velsen L, Evers, M, Bara CD, Op den Akker H, Boerema S, Hermens H. Understanding the acceptance of an ehealth technology in the early stages of development: an end-user walkthrough approach and two case studies. JMIR Form Res. 2018 Jun 15; 2(1):e10474. PubMed PMID: 30684434.
  9. Van Velsen L, Hermens H, Nijeweme-d'Hollosy WO. A maturity model for interoperability in eHealth. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 18th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom 2016); 2016 Sep 14-16;
  10. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. In: IEEE Std 610.12-1990. New York: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 1990. p.1-84.
  11. Azarm M, Backman C, Kuziemsky C, Peyton L. Breaking the healthcare interoperability barrier by empowering and engaging actors in the healthcare system. Procedia Comput Sci. 2017;113:326-33.
  12. Hellberg AS, Grönlund Å. Conflicts in implementing interoperability: Re-operationalizing basic values. Gov Inf Q. 2013 Apr; 30(2):154-62.
  13. Benson T. Why Interoperability is Hard. In: Principles of Health Interoperability HL7 and SNOMED. 1st ed. London: Springer; 2012. p. 25-34.
  14. Weber JH, Kuziemsky C. Pragmatic Interoperability for eHealth Systems: The Fallback Workflow Patterns. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for Healthcare (SEH); 2019 May 27; Quebec, Canada. Danvers: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2019. p. 29-36.
  15. Rossi Mori A, Mazzeo M, Mercurio G, Verbicaro R. Holistic health: Predicting our data future (from inter-operability among systems to co-operability among people). Int J Med Inform. 2013 Apr; 82(4):e14-28.
  16. Chervitz SA, Deutsch EW, Field D, Parkinson H, Quackenbush J, Rocca-Serra P, et al. Data standards for Omics data: the basis of data sharing and reuse. Methods Mol Biol. 2011; 719:31-69.
  17. Kang'a S, Puttkammer N, Wanyee S, Kimanga D, Madrano J, Muthee V, et al. A national standards-based assessment on functionality of electronic medical records systems used in Kenyan public -Sector health facilities. Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan; 97:68-75.
  18. Bond A, Hacking A, Milosevic Z, Zander A. Specifying and building interoperable eHealth systems: ODP benefits and lessons learned. Comput Stand Inter. 2013 Mar; 35(3):313-28.
  19. National eHealth Program [Internet]. Manila: Republic of the Philippines; c2021 [cited 2021 Jan]. Standards and Interoperability; [about 2 screens]. Available from http://ehealth.doh.gov.ph/index. php/pehsp/component/standards-and-interoperability 30. Johnson C. A guide to knowing which healthcare terminology standard to use [Internet]. Salt Lake City (UT): Health Catalyst; c2021 [updated 2013 Sep; cited 2021 Mar]. Available from https:// www.healthcatalyst.com/Healthcare-Terminology-Standards-Use 31. MuthamilSelvan T, Balamurugan B. Cloud based automated framework for semantic rich ontology construction and similarity computation for E-health applications. Inform Med Unlocked. 2017; 8:66-73.
  20. Fragidis LL, Chatzoglou PD. Development of Nationwide Electronic Health Record (NEHR): an international survey. Health Policy Technol. 2017 Jun; 6(2):124-33.
  21. Kliem A, Boelke A, Grohnert A, Traeder N. A Reconfigurable Middleware for On-Demand Integration of Medical Devices. IRBM. 2016 Aug; 37(4):198-209.
  22. Rubrichi S, Battistotti A, Quaglini S. Patients' involvement in e-health services quality assessment: a system for the automatic interpretation of SMS-based patients' feedback. J Biomed Inform. 2014 Oct; 51:41-8.
  23. Rojas-Mendizabal, VA, Serrano-Santoyo A, Conte-Galvan R, Gomez- Gonzalez A. Toward a Model for Quality of Experience and Quality of Service in e-health Ecosystems. Proc Technol. 2013; 9:968-74.
  24. Kim, TY, Hardiker N, Coenen A. Inter-terminology mapping of nursing problems. J Biomed Inform. 2014 Jun; 49:213-20.
  25. González-Ferrer A, Peleg M. Understanding requirements of clinical data standards for developing interoperable knowledge-based DSS: A case study. Comput Stand Inter. 2015 Nov; 42:125-36.
  26. Viji Rajendran V, Swamynathan S. MOSS-IR: Multi-ontology based search system for information retrieval in E-health domain. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015; 47:179-87.
  27. Petersen LS, Bertelsen P, Bjørnes C. Cooperation and communication challenges in small-scale eHealth development projects. Int J Med Inform. 2013 Dec; 82(12):e375-85.
  28. Ouhbi S, Fernández-Alemán JL, Carrillo-de-Gea JM, Toval A, Idri A. E-health internationalization requirements for audit purposes. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2017 Jun; 144:49-60.
  29. Jiang LC, Wang ZZ, Peng TQ, Zhu JJ. The divided communities of shared concerns: Mapping the intellectual structure of e-Health research in social science journals. Int J Med Inform. 2015 Jan; 84(1):24-35.
  30. Lappa E, Giannakopoulos G. E-health information management according to types of DRGs and ICD Classification Systems: Greek Perspectives and Initiatives. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013 Feb; 73: 246-50.
  31. Vicente MR, Madden G. Assessing eHealth skills across Europeans. Health Policy Technol. 2017 Jun; 6(2):161-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sylim, P. G., Lu, J. L., & Marcelo, P. G. F.
Affiliations
University of the Philippines Manila (PH)
ORCID
Sylim, Patrick G.
Venue
Acta Medica Philippina
Publisher
University of the Philippines Manila
Published
2022-01-31
Volume
56
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0001-6071 (ISSN-L)
  • 2094-9278
DOI
10.47895/amp.v56i1.3937
OpenAlex
W4210549660
Cited by
10
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
Acta Medica Philippina (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • University of the Philippines
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Innovation in Digital Healthcare Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
e-health, terminology standards, interoperability, electronic health records, universal health coverage, health information exchange, health policy, barriers to interoperability, rural health units, health insurance claims

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