30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of an Evidence-Based Conceptual Model of the Health Care Sector Under Digital Transformation: Integrative Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Digital transformation is currently one of the most influential developments. It is fundamentally changing consumers’ expectations and behaviors, challenging traditional firms, and disrupting numerous markets. Recent discussions in the health care sector tend to assess the influence of technological implications but neglect other factors needed for a holistic view on the digital transformation. This calls for a reevaluation of the current state of digital transformation in health care. Consequently, there is a need for a holistic view on the complex interdependencies of digital transformation in the health care sector.

          Objective

          This study aimed to examine the effects of digital transformation on the health care sector. This is accomplished by providing a conceptual model of the health care sector under digital transformation.

          Methods

          First, the most essential stakeholders in the health care sector were identified by a scoping review and grounded theory approach. Second, the effects on these stakeholders were assessed. PubMed, Web of Science, and Dimensions were searched for relevant studies. On the basis of an integrative review and grounded theory methodology, the relevant academic literature was systematized and quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed to evaluate the impact on the value creation of, and the relationships among, the stakeholders. Third, the findings were synthesized into a conceptual model of the health care sector under digital transformation.

          Results

          A total of 2505 records were identified from the database search; of these, 140 (5.59%) were included and analyzed. The results revealed that providers of medical treatments, patients, governing institutions, and payers are the most essential stakeholders in the health care sector. As for the individual stakeholders, patients are experiencing a technology-enabled growth of influence in the sector. Providers are becoming increasingly dependent on intermediaries for essential parts of the value creation and patient interaction. Payers are expected to try to increase their influence on intermediaries to exploit the enormous amounts of data while seeing their business models be challenged by emerging technologies. Governing institutions regulating the health care sector are increasingly facing challenges from new entrants in the sector. Intermediaries increasingly interconnect all these stakeholders, which in turn drives new ways of value creation. These collaborative efforts have led to the establishment of a virtually integrated health care ecosystem.

          Conclusions

          The conceptual model provides a novel and evidence-based perspective on the interrelations among actors in the health care sector, indicating that individual stakeholders need to recognize their role in the system. The model can be the basis of further evaluations of strategic actions of actors and their effects on other actors or the health care ecosystem itself.

          Related collections

          Most cited references224

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

              Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                2023
                8 June 2023
                : 25
                : e41512
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute of Management Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Nuremberg Germany
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Jens Konopik jens.konopik@ 123456fau.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3173-3384
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8843-2411
                Article
                v25i1e41512
                10.2196/41512
                10288351
                37289482
                7617274a-5670-4f02-8b05-c92555debd8a
                ©Jens Konopik, Dominik Blunck. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 08.06.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 29 July 2022
                : 2 November 2022
                : 14 December 2022
                : 7 April 2023
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                digital transformation,health care,healthcare 4.0,digital health,ehealth,conceptual model,literature review,grounded theory,integrative review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content58

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors2,648