Our future: a Lancet commission on adolescent health and wellbeing

Background 
There is considerable international interest in exploiting the potential of digital solutions to enhance the quality and safety of health care. Implementations of transformative eHealth technologies are underway globally, often at very considerable cost. In order to assess the impact of eHealth solutions on the quality and safety of health care, and to inform policy decisions on eHealth deployments, we undertook a systematic review of systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness and consequences of various eHealth technologies on the quality and safety of care.


Methods and Findings 
We developed novel search strategies, conceptual maps of health care quality, safety, and eHealth interventions, and then systematically identified, scrutinised, and synthesised the systematic review literature. Major biomedical databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between 1997 and 2010. Related theoretical, methodological, and technical material was also reviewed. We identified 53 systematic reviews that focused on assessing the impact of eHealth interventions on the quality and/or safety of health care and 55 supplementary systematic reviews providing relevant supportive information. This systematic review literature was found to be generally of substandard quality with regards to methodology, reporting, and utility. We thematically categorised eHealth technologies into three main areas: (1) storing, managing, and transmission of data; (2) clinical decision support; and (3) facilitating care from a distance. We found that despite support from policymakers, there was relatively little empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims made in relation to these technologies. Whether the success of those relatively few solutions identified to improve quality and safety would continue if these were deployed beyond the contexts in which they were originally developed, has yet to be established. Importantly, best practice guidelines in effective development and deployment strategies are lacking.


Conclusions 
There is a large gap between the postulated and empirically demonstrated benefits of eHealth technologies. In addition, there is a lack of robust research on the risks of implementing these technologies and their cost-effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated, despite being frequently promoted by policymakers and “techno-enthusiasts” as if this was a given. In the light of the paucity of evidence in relation to improvements in patient outcomes, as well as the lack of evidence on their cost-effectiveness, it is vital that future eHealth technologies are evaluated against a comprehensive set of measures, ideally throughout all stages of the technology's life cycle. Such evaluation should be characterised by careful attention to socio-technical factors to maximise the likelihood of successful implementation and adoption.



Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

/pdf/the-impact-of-ehealth-on-the-quality-and-safety-of-health-3qcd3xs5ri.pdf

The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview.

Doctors have little specific research to draw on when predicting outcome. In this first article in a series Karel Moons and colleagues explain why research into prognosis is important and how to design such research

Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how?

Clinical prediction models are increasingly used to complement clinical reasoning and decision-making in modern medicine, in general, and in the cardiovascular domain, in particular. To these ends, developed models first and foremost need to provide accurate and (internally and externally) validated estimates of probabilities of specific health conditions or outcomes in the targeted individuals. Subsequently, the adoption of such models by professionals must guide their decision-making, and improve patient outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of care. In the first paper of this series of two companion papers, issues relating to prediction model development, their internal validation, and estimating the added value of a new (bio)marker to existing predictors were discussed. In this second paper, an overview is provided of the consecutive steps for the assessment of the model's predictive performance in new individuals (external validation studies), how to adjust or update existing models to local circumstances or with new predictors, and how to investigate the impact of the uptake of prediction models on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes (impact studies). Each step is illustrated with empirical examples from the cardiovascular field.

https://www.med.mahidol.ac.th/ceb/sites/default/files/public/pdf/announcements/2012%20Moons%20et%20al%20overview%20risk%20prediction%20modeling%20part%202%20Heart.pdf

Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment

An accurate prognostic model is of no benefit if it is not generalisable or doesn’t change behaviour. In the last article in their series Karel Moons and colleagues discuss how to determine the practical value of models

Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice

Objective To identify features of clinical decision support systems critical for improving clinical practice. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Literature searches via Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 2003; and searches of reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. Study selection Studies had to evaluate the ability of decision support systems to improve clinical practice. Data extraction Studies were assessed for statistically and clinically significant improvement in clinical practice and for the presence of 15 decision support system features whose importance had been repeatedly suggested in the literature. Results Seventy studies were included. Decision support systems significantly improved clinical practice in 68% of trials. Univariate analyses revealed that, for five of the system features, interventions possessing the feature were significantly more likely to improve clinical practice than interventions lacking the feature. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified four features as independent predictors of improved clinical practice: automatic provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow (P Conclusions Several features were closely correlated with decision support systems9 ability to improve patient care significantly. Clinicians and other stakeholders should implement clinical decision support systems that incorporate these features whenever feasible and appropriate.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/330/7494/765.full.pdf

Caitlin A Houlihan

Papers

Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success

of trials to identify features critical to success decision support systems: a systematic review Improving clinical practice using clinical