3.8 Review

Digital transformation in the area of health: systematic review of 45 years of evolution

Journal

HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 575-586

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s12553-019-00402-8

Keywords

Digital; Health; Information system; Management; Hospital; Systematic literature review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to explore the potential of existing digital solutions to improve the quality and safety of healthcare and analyse the emerging trend of digital medicine. Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of the period 1973-2018. To select articles, a prioritization index is proposed, aggregating the characteristics of the score of journals (2017 basis), number of article citations and year of publication, through the Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique Exploiting Ranks (SMARTER) method. Of the 749 articles listed, 53 were selected and analysed. The majority of research in digital medicine has been focused on integrated management, electronic medical records and medical images, but a research trend is observed in new areas such as virtual service, the use of portable devices as instruments for monitoring the patient and concern about the privacy of medical documents. Categorization in seven areas was carried out, focusing on integrated management of information technology in health, medical images, electronic medical records, development of portable, mobile devices in health, access to e-health, telemedicine and privacy of medical data. Longitudinal analysis of systematized studies, keeping the focus on digital technological developments in health is a trend to extend researchers' vision, by providing important indications for further study. Suggestions for future investigations are formulated for each identified category. This study reveals great possibilities for SLR with the use of Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique Exploiting Ranks (SMARTER).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available