Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T05:04:09.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ICT AND THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE: ASPECTS OF DOCTOR-PATIENT COMMUNICATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2014

Daniela Haluza  and
David Jungwirth
Daniela Haluza
Affiliation:
Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna Kinderspitalgasse 15, A-1090 Vienna, Austria email: daniela.haluza@meduniwien.ac.at
David Jungwirth
Affiliation:
Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna Kinderspitalgasse 15, A-1090 Vienna, Austria email: davidjungwirth@gmx.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The current digital revolution is particularly relevant for interactions of healthcare providers with patients and the community as a whole. The growing public acceptance and distribution of new communication tools such as smart mobile phones provide the prerequisite for information and communication technology (ICT) -assisted healthcare applications. The present study aimed at identifying specifications and perceptions of different interest groups regarding future demands of ICT-supported doctor–patient communication in Austria.

Methods: German-speaking Austrian healthcare experts (n = 73; 74 percent males; mean age, 43.9 years; SD 9.4) representing medical professionals, patient advocates, and administrative personnel participated in a 2-round online Delphi process. Participants evaluated scenario-based benefits and obstacles for possible prospect introduction as well as degree of innovation, desirability, and estimated implementation dates of two medical care-related future set ups.

Results: Panelists expected the future ICT-supported doctor–patient dialogue to especially improve the three factors doctors–patient relationship, patients’ knowledge, and quality of social health care. However, lack of acceptance by doctors, data security, and monetary aspects were considered as the three most relevant barriers for ICT implementation. Furthermore, inter-group comparison regarding desirability of future scenarios showed that medical professionals tended to be more skeptical about health-related technological innovations (p < .001).

Conclusions: The findings of this survey revealed different expectations among interest groups. Thus, we suggest building taskforces and using workshops for establishing a dialogue between stakeholders to positively shape the future of ICT-supported collaboration and communication between doctors and patients.

Keywords

Delphi surveyDoctor–patient communicationInformation and communication technologiesHealth policyPublic health
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 3: Theme: Adaptive Approaches to Licensing , July 2014 , pp. 298 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Matusitz, J, Spear, J. Effective doctor–patient communication: An updatedc examination. Soc Work Public Health. 2014;29 (3):252–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Singh, H, Naik, AD, Rao, R, Petersen, LA. Reducing diagnostic errors through effective communication: Harnessing the power of information technology. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:489–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Statistik Austria. CT usage in households in 2012. http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/information_society/ict_usage_in_households/index.html (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
4. Frisse, ME, Holmes, RL. Estimated financial savings associated with health information exchange and ambulatory care referral. J Biomed Inform. 2007;40:S27–S32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Ueckert, F, Goerz, M, Ataian, M, et al. Empowerment of patients and communication with health care professionals through an electronic health record. Int J Med Inform. 2003;70:99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Calabretta N. Consumer-driven, patient-centered health care in the age of electronic information. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:32–37.Google Scholar
7. Breen, GM, Wan, TT, Zhang, NJ, et al. Improving doctor-patient communication: Examining innovative modalities vis-a-vis effective patient-centric care management technology. J Med Syst. 2009;33:155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Weiner, JP. Doctor-patient communication in the e-health era. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1:33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Wentzer, HS, Bygholm, A. Narratives of empowerment and compliance: Studies of communication in online patient support groups. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:e386–e394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Rowe, G, Wright, G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. Int J Forecast. 1999;15:353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Aichholzer, G. The expert Delphi: Methodology and application in technology foresight. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences - Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) manuscripts; 2002.Google Scholar
12. Bissell, P, May, CR, Noyce, PR. From compliance to concordance: Barriers to accomplishing a re-framed model of health care interactions. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:851–862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Chaudhry, B, Wang, J, Wu, S, et al. Systematic review: Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:742–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Feliciani, F. Medical care from space: Telemedicine. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;104:207–210.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Atteslander, P. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2010, ISBN-13: 978-3503126187.Google Scholar
16. Soscisurvey. https://www.soscisurvey.de/ (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
17. Windle, PE. Delphi technique: Assessing component needs. J Perianesth Nurs. 2004;19:46–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Geist, MR. Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies. Eval Program Plann. 2010;33:147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. de Leeuw, ED. Reducing missing data in surveys: An overview of methods. Qual Quant. 2001;35:147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Pearce, J, Jones, C, Morrison, S, et al. Using a Delphi process to develop an effective train-the-trainers program to train health and social care professionals throughout Europe. J Trauma Stress. 2012;25:337–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Mitha, A, Boulyana, M, Hue, V, et al. Consensus in diagnostic definitions for bone or joint infections in children by a Delphi method with European French-speaking experts. Acta Paediatr. 2012;101:e350–e356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Cartwright, A. Professionals as responders: Variations in and effects of response rates to questionnaires, 1961–77. Br Med J. 1978;2:1419–1421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Cho, YI, Johnson, TP, VanGeest, JB. Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: A meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36:382–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Cabieses, B, Faba, G, Espinoza, M, Santorelli, G. The link between information and communication technologies and global public health: Pushing forward. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19:879–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Ilioudi, S, Lazakidou, A, Tsironi, M. Information and communication technologies for better patient self-management and self-efficacy. Int J Electron Healthc. 2010;5:327–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Lupianez-Villanueva, F, Hardey, M, Torrent, J, Ficapal, P. The integration of information and communication technology into medical practice. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:478–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Simon, SR, Evans, JS, Benjamin, A, et al. Patients’ attitudes toward electronic health information exchange: Qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11:e30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Haluza and Jungwirth Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Haluza and Jungwirth Supplementary Material(File)
File 24.6 KB