Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy

Russell E. Glasgow*, Siobhan M. Phillips, Michael A. Sanchez

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To summarize key issues in the eHealth field from an implementation science perspective and to highlight illustrative processes, examples and key directions to help more rapidly integrate research, policy and practice. Methods: We present background on implementation science models and emerging principles; discuss implications for eHealth research; provide examples of practical designs, measures and exemplar studies that address key implementation science issues; and make recommendations for ways to more rapidly develop and test eHealth interventions as well as future research, policy and practice. Results: The pace of eHealth research has generally not kept up with technological advances, and many of our designs, methods and funding mechanisms are incapable of providing the types of rapid and relevant information needed. Although there has been substantial eHealth research conducted with positive short-term results, several key implementation and dissemination issues such as representativeness, cost, unintended consequences, impact on health inequities, and sustainability have not been addressed or reported. Examples of studies in several of these areas are summarized to demonstrate this is possible. Conclusions: eHealth research that is intended to translate into policy and practice should be more contextual, report more on setting factors, employ more responsive and pragmatic designs and report results more transparently on issues important to potential adopting patients, clinicians and organizational decision makers. We outline an alternative development and assessment model, summarize implementation science findings that can help focus attention, and call for different types of more rapid and relevant research and funding mechanisms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e1-e11
JournalInternational Journal of Medical Informatics
Volume83
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2014

Fingerprint

Telemedicine
Research
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health

Keywords

  • EHealth
  • Implementation science
  • Internet
  • MHealth
  • Methodology
  • Recommendations
  • Review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics

Cite this

@article{15eb04325f3f4757bacbc991bd7288db,
title = "Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy",
abstract = "Purpose: To summarize key issues in the eHealth field from an implementation science perspective and to highlight illustrative processes, examples and key directions to help more rapidly integrate research, policy and practice. Methods: We present background on implementation science models and emerging principles; discuss implications for eHealth research; provide examples of practical designs, measures and exemplar studies that address key implementation science issues; and make recommendations for ways to more rapidly develop and test eHealth interventions as well as future research, policy and practice. Results: The pace of eHealth research has generally not kept up with technological advances, and many of our designs, methods and funding mechanisms are incapable of providing the types of rapid and relevant information needed. Although there has been substantial eHealth research conducted with positive short-term results, several key implementation and dissemination issues such as representativeness, cost, unintended consequences, impact on health inequities, and sustainability have not been addressed or reported. Examples of studies in several of these areas are summarized to demonstrate this is possible. Conclusions: eHealth research that is intended to translate into policy and practice should be more contextual, report more on setting factors, employ more responsive and pragmatic designs and report results more transparently on issues important to potential adopting patients, clinicians and organizational decision makers. We outline an alternative development and assessment model, summarize implementation science findings that can help focus attention, and call for different types of more rapid and relevant research and funding mechanisms.",
keywords = "EHealth, Implementation science, Internet, MHealth, Methodology, Recommendations, Review",
author = "Glasgow, {Russell E.} and Phillips, {Siobhan M.} and Sanchez, {Michael A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.07.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "83",
pages = "e1--e11",
journal = "International Journal of Medical Informatics",
issn = "1386-5056",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "7",

}

Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy. / Glasgow, Russell E.; Phillips, Siobhan M.; Sanchez, Michael A.

In: International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 83, No. 7, 07.2014, p. e1-e11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy

AU - Glasgow, Russell E.

AU - Phillips, Siobhan M.

AU - Sanchez, Michael A.

PY - 2014/7

Y1 - 2014/7

N2 - Purpose: To summarize key issues in the eHealth field from an implementation science perspective and to highlight illustrative processes, examples and key directions to help more rapidly integrate research, policy and practice. Methods: We present background on implementation science models and emerging principles; discuss implications for eHealth research; provide examples of practical designs, measures and exemplar studies that address key implementation science issues; and make recommendations for ways to more rapidly develop and test eHealth interventions as well as future research, policy and practice. Results: The pace of eHealth research has generally not kept up with technological advances, and many of our designs, methods and funding mechanisms are incapable of providing the types of rapid and relevant information needed. Although there has been substantial eHealth research conducted with positive short-term results, several key implementation and dissemination issues such as representativeness, cost, unintended consequences, impact on health inequities, and sustainability have not been addressed or reported. Examples of studies in several of these areas are summarized to demonstrate this is possible. Conclusions: eHealth research that is intended to translate into policy and practice should be more contextual, report more on setting factors, employ more responsive and pragmatic designs and report results more transparently on issues important to potential adopting patients, clinicians and organizational decision makers. We outline an alternative development and assessment model, summarize implementation science findings that can help focus attention, and call for different types of more rapid and relevant research and funding mechanisms.

AB - Purpose: To summarize key issues in the eHealth field from an implementation science perspective and to highlight illustrative processes, examples and key directions to help more rapidly integrate research, policy and practice. Methods: We present background on implementation science models and emerging principles; discuss implications for eHealth research; provide examples of practical designs, measures and exemplar studies that address key implementation science issues; and make recommendations for ways to more rapidly develop and test eHealth interventions as well as future research, policy and practice. Results: The pace of eHealth research has generally not kept up with technological advances, and many of our designs, methods and funding mechanisms are incapable of providing the types of rapid and relevant information needed. Although there has been substantial eHealth research conducted with positive short-term results, several key implementation and dissemination issues such as representativeness, cost, unintended consequences, impact on health inequities, and sustainability have not been addressed or reported. Examples of studies in several of these areas are summarized to demonstrate this is possible. Conclusions: eHealth research that is intended to translate into policy and practice should be more contextual, report more on setting factors, employ more responsive and pragmatic designs and report results more transparently on issues important to potential adopting patients, clinicians and organizational decision makers. We outline an alternative development and assessment model, summarize implementation science findings that can help focus attention, and call for different types of more rapid and relevant research and funding mechanisms.

KW - EHealth

KW - Implementation science

KW - Internet

KW - MHealth

KW - Methodology

KW - Recommendations

KW - Review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902086773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902086773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.07.002

DO - 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.07.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 23910896

AN - SCOPUS:84902086773

VL - 83

SP - e1-e11

JO - International Journal of Medical Informatics

JF - International Journal of Medical Informatics

SN - 1386-5056

IS - 7

ER -