Elements of Trust in Digital Health Systems: Scoping Review

Afua Adjekum, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena, Afua Adjekum, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena

Abstract

Background: Information and communication technologies have long become prominent components of health systems. Rapid advances in digital technologies and data science over the last few years are predicted to have a vast impact on health care services, configuring a paradigm shift into what is now commonly referred to as digital health. Forecasted to curb rising health costs as well as to improve health system efficiency and safety, digital health success heavily relies on trust from professional end users, administrators, and patients. Yet, what counts as the building blocks of trust in digital health systems has so far remained underexplored.

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze what relevant stakeholders consider as enablers and impediments of trust in digital health.

Methods: We performed a scoping review to map out trust in digital health. To identify relevant digital health studies, we searched 5 electronic databases. Using keywords and Medical Subject Headings, we targeted all relevant studies and set no boundaries for publication year to allow a broad range of studies to be identified. The studies were screened by 2 reviewers after which a predefined data extraction strategy was employed and relevant themes documented.

Results: Overall, 278 qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, and intervention studies in English, published between 1998 and 2017 and conducted in 40 countries were included in this review. Patients and health care professionals were the two most prominent stakeholders of trust in digital health; a third-health administrators-was substantially less prominent. Our analysis identified cross-cutting personal, institutional, and technological elements of trust that broadly cluster into 16 enablers (altruism, fair data access, ease of use, self-efficacy, sociodemographic factors, recommendation by other users, usefulness, customizable design features, interoperability, privacy, initial face-to-face contact, guidelines for standardized use, stakeholder engagement, improved communication, decreased workloads, and service provider reputation) and 10 impediments (excessive costs, limited accessibility, sociodemographic factors, fear of data exploitation, insufficient training, defective technology, poor information quality, inadequate publicity, time-consuming, and service provider reputation) to trust in digital health.

Conclusions: Trust in digital health technologies and services depends on the interplay of a complex set of enablers and impediments. This study is a contribution to ongoing efforts to understand what determines trust in digital health according to different stakeholders. Therefore, it offers valuable points of reference for the implementation of innovative digital health services. Building on insights from this study, actionable metrics can be developed to assess the trustworthiness of digital technologies in health care.

Keywords: digital health; digital health technologies; health care; health systems; trust.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Afua Adjekum, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 13.12.2018.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

References

    1. Kostkova P. Grand challenges in digital health. Front Public Health. 2015;3:134. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00134. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00134.
    1. World Health Organization. 2018. [2018-06-07]. eHealth
    1. Vayena E, Haeusermann T, Adjekum A, Blasimme A. Digital health: meeting the ethical and policy challenges. Swiss Med Wkly. 2018 Dec 29;148:w14571. doi: 10.4414/smw.2018.14571. smw-14571
    1. Steinhubl SR, Topol EJ. Digital medicine, on its way to being just plain medicine. npj Digital Med. 2018 Jan 15;1(1):1–1. doi: 10.1038/s41746-017-0005-1.
    1. Boogerd EA, Arts T, Engelen LJ, van de Belt TH. “What Is eHealth”: Time for An Update? JMIR Res Protoc. 2015 Mar 12;4(1):e29. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4065. v4i1e29
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration. 2018. [2018-06-07]. Digital Health
    1. Duggal R, Brindle I, Bagenal J. Digital healthcare: regulating the revolution. BMJ. 2018 Dec 15;360:k6.
    1. Krenn L, Schlossman D. Have Electronic Health Records Improved the Quality of Patient Care? PM R. 2017 May;9(5S):S41–S50. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.04.001.S1934-1482(17)30414-8
    1. Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, Taylor R. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24(5):1103–17. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103. 24/5/1103
    1. McKenna RM, Dwyer D, Rizzo JA. Is HIT a hit? The impact of health information technology on inpatient hospital outcomes. Applied Economics. 2017 Dec 22;50(27):3016–3028. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2017.1414934.
    1. Agboola SO, Bates DW, Kvedar JC. Digital Health and Patient Safety. JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1697–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.2402.2516723
    1. Horvitz E, Mulligan D. Policy forum. Data, privacy, and the greater good. Science. 2015 Jul 17;349(6245):253–5. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4520.349/6245/253
    1. Franko OI, Tirrell TF. Smartphone app use among medical providers in ACGME training programs. J Med Syst. 2012 Oct;36(5):3135–9. doi: 10.1007/s10916-011-9798-7.
    1. Steinhubl SR, Muse ED, Topol EJ. The emerging field of mobile health. Sci Transl Med. 2015 Apr 15;7(283):283rv3. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa3487.7/283/283rv3
    1. Yusif S, Soar J, Hafeez-Baig A. Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2016 Oct;94:112–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.07.004.S1386-5056(16)30155-1
    1. Mittelstadt B. Ethical Issues of Personal Health Monitoring: A Literature Review. ETHICOMP; 2011; Sheffield. 2011.
    1. Chan M, Estève D, Fourniols J, Escriba C, Campo E. Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges. Artif Intell Med. 2012 Nov;56(3):137–56. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2012.09.003.S0933-3657(12)00118-2
    1. Khoja S, Durrani H, Nayani P, Fahim A. Scope of policy issues in eHealth: results from a structured literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 17;14(1):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1633. v14i1e34
    1. Strech D. Ethical principles for physician rating sites. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e113. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1899. v13i4e113
    1. O'Connor S, Hanlon P, O'Donnell CA, Garcia S, Glanville J, Mair FS. Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Sep 15;16(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3. 10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3
    1. Torous J, Roberts LW. Needed Innovation in Digital Health and Smartphone Applications for Mental Health: Transparency and Trust. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 May 01;74(5):437–438. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0262.2616170
    1. Yamin CK, Emani S, Williams DH, Lipsitz SR, Karson AS, Wald JS, Bates DW. The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record. Arch Intern Med. 2011 Mar 28;171(6):568–74. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.34.171/6/568
    1. Kelton K, Fleischmann KR, Wallace WA. Trust in digital information. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2008 Feb 01;59(3):363–374. doi: 10.1002/asi.20722.
    1. Adjekum A, Ienca M, Vayena E. What Is Trust? Ethics and Risk Governance in Precision Medicine and Predictive Analytics. OMICS. 2017 Dec;21(12):704–710. doi: 10.1089/omi.2017.0156.
    1. O'Neill O. A Question of Trust : The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 4–8.
    1. O'Neill O. Intelligent Trust in a Digital World. New Perspectives Quarterly. 2017;34(4):6–31. doi: 10.1111/npqu.12105.
    1. Dorr GS, Lipkin M. The doctor-patient relationship: challenges, opportunities, and strategies. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Jan;14 Suppl 1:S26–33.
    1. Bending ZJ. Reconceptualising the doctor-patient relationship: recognising the role of trust in contemporary health care. J Bioeth Inq. 2015 Jun;12(2):189–202. doi: 10.1007/s11673-014-9570-z.
    1. O'Neill O. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 16–21.
    1. Gilson L. Trust and the development of health care as a social institution. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Apr;56(7):1453–68.S0277953602001429
    1. Rowe R, Calnan M. Trust relations in health care: developing a theoretical framework for the “new” NHS. J Health Organ Manag. 2006;20(5):376–96. doi: 10.1108/14777260610701777.
    1. Hawley K. Trust, Distrust and Commitment. Noûs. 2012 Oct 25;48(1):1–20. doi: 10.1111/nous.12000.
    1. Sztompka P. Trust: a Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 44–46.
    1. Giddens A, Anthony . The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Cambridge, UK : Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1990; 1990. pp. 25–36.
    1. Montague EN, Kleiner BM, Winchester WW. Empirically understanding trust in medical technology. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2009 Jul;39(4):628–634. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2009.01.004.
    1. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005 Feb;8(1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.
    1. Tung F, Chang S, Chou C. An extension of trust and TAM model with IDT in the adoption of the electronic logistics information system in HIS in the medical industry. Int J Med Inform. 2008 May;77(5):324–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.06.006.S1386-5056(07)00121-9
    1. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):697–703. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.010.S0895-4356(05)00411-7
    1. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22(3):276–82.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
    1. Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989 Sep;13(3):319. doi: 10.2307/249008.
    1. Plomp HN, Ballast N. Trust and vulnerability in doctor-patient relations in occupational health. Occup Med (Lond) 2010 Jun;60(4):261–9. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqq067.kqq067
    1. Hall MA, Dugan E, Zheng B, Mishra AK. Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Milbank Q. 2001;79(4):613–39, v.
    1. Hardiker NR, Grant MJ. Factors that influence public engagement with eHealth: A literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2011 Jan;80(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.10.017.S1386-5056(10)00209-1
    1. Abelson J, Miller FA, Giacomini M. What does it mean to trust a health system? A qualitative study of Canadian health care values. Health Policy. 2009 Jun;91(1):63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.11.006.S0168-8510(08)00256-X
    1. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 26;372(9):793–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1500523.
    1. Fogel AL, Kvedar JC. Artificial intelligence powers digital medicine. Digital Med. 2018 Mar 14;1(1):1–4. doi: 10.1038/s41746-017-0012-2.
    1. Blasimme A, Vayena E. Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine. BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Dec 04;17(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0149-6. 10.1186/s12910-016-0149-6
    1. Blasimme A, Vayena E. “Tailored-to-You”: Public Engagement and the Political Legitimation of Precision Medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2016;59(2):172–188. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2017.0002.
    1. Velsen LV, Tabak M, Hermens H. Measuring patient trust in telemedicine services: Development of a survey instrument and its validation for an anticoagulation web-service. Int J Med Inform. 2017 Dec;97:52–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.09.009.S1386-5056(16)30202-7
    1. Chen JH, Asch SM. Machine Learning and Prediction in Medicine - Beyond the Peak of Inflated Expectations. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 29;376(26):2507–2509. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1702071.
    1. Shapshay SM. Artificial intelligence: the future of medicine? JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Mar;140(3):191. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.6465.1812651
    1. Beam AL, Kohane IS. Translating Artificial Intelligence Into Clinical Care. JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2368–2369. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17217.2588761
    1. Vayena E, Blasimme A. Health Research with Big Data: Time for Systemic Oversight. J Law Med Ethics. 2018 Mar 27;46(1):119–129. doi: 10.1177/1073110518766026.
    1. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.HIR848

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit