A regulatory framework for pervasive e-health: A case study☆
Highlights
► Existing regulatory regimes are ill-equipped for dealing with e-health solutions. ► We investigate the regulatory factors that impact the adoption these solutions. ► Co-regulation can minimize costs and enhance compliance of these solutions.
Introduction
Pervasive e-health constitutes the use of digitally enabled technologies to facilitate and enhance the exchange of clinical, administrative, informational, educational, and transactional data ubiquitously in healthcare settings [24], [52], [56]. Examples of pervasive e-health solutions include telemedicine and telecare services, virtual reality, computer-assisted surgery, mobile monitoring systems (e.g. for the electronic management of chronic diseases), electronic medical records management including digital imaging and archiving systems, and electronic prescribing [13]. Taken together, pervasive e-health solutions have the potential to generate enormous efficiencies and services quality and to reduce medical errors [2], [26].
Delivering pervasive e-health solutions requires the integration of diverse technological and organizational resources which typically cannot be found within individual organizations. The knowledge necessary for developing and deploying these solutions may involve several heterogeneous stakeholders that are often embedded in various technological, economic, and social settings [24]. In order to succeed, these stakeholders must interact with each other while complying with institutional requirements including legal and societal requirements that balance their diverging interests, motivations, and needs [8], [33], [54], [61]. These requirements constitute a regulatory regime which can operate at either industrial, national or international levels and can influence, direct, limit or prohibit any activity undertaken by stakeholders operating in the pervasive e-health solutions industry [24], [26], [47].
Given the nature of healthcare and the sensitivity of healthcare information, it is typically incumbent upon regulatory and legislative government authorities to set up regulatory regimes and mandate their use [27]. Generally, these regimes can facilitate the exchange of healthcare data and information amongst various healthcare stakeholders while also providing protection of patient rights including privacy [27]. Credible and transparent regulatory rules can boost much needed investments in the pervasive e-health solutions industry, promote public confidence and the development of innovative and affordable pervasive e-health solutions, and stimulate industry research and development efforts [33], [64]. However, regulation can also impact the industry in a negative way. Increasing the regulatory compliance burden for stakeholders can increase the overall cost of operation which can impede the development and deployment of pervasive e-health solutions by acting as a barrier and thus hampering pervasive e-health innovations [26], [47], [60].
It is not until particular pervasive e-health solutions have been commercialized that their originators realize the problems that they pose to patients in particular and more broadly to society [39]. Therefore, “one needs to be concerned with societal, legal, and general economic factors” (page 7 in [39]) when a service technology has reached a minimum standard of performance and reliability. This is a stage that is generally overlooked. That is, answers are needed for potential legal, societal, and general economic concerns that pervasive e-health solutions may introduce [17], [39], [48].
Even though regulation has been attracting the attention of policy makers as e-health matures, regulatory regimes around the globe are ill-equipped and moving slowly for dealing with these technologies [26], [47]. In fact, there are growing concerns in extant literature that regulatory agencies have failed to keep abreast with developments in the pervasive e-health realm [15], [23]. Yet, extant research also shows that regulatory issues including legal barriers have been identified as a major force in the development and deployment of pervasive e-health solutions [24], [42]. In fact, because extant policy frameworks that are inherited from specific national and international settings are “not well-placed to deal with contemporary communications technologies that blur the boundaries among these” (page 181 in [17]), pervasive e-health solutions may not always fit within traditional healthcare regulation models [47]. For example, while in some regulatory regimes there may be legal obstacles that influence the reimbursement structures and payments when treatments are carried out in the e-health realm (e.g. Internet), in others there are limitations that mandate physical face-to-face physician–patient consultation thereby restricting the use of corresponding emerging e-health opportunities [24]. These examples suggest that regulation can shape the form pervasive e-health solutions will (or will not) take [47], [48].
The following research in progress attempts to answer the key research question “why do current regulatory regimens fail to facilitate e-health solution adoption and what can/should be done to address such existing barriers?” To answer this question we first leverage extant literature by using the institution-based view as a tool to investigate how regulation can affect the adoption of pervasive e-health solutions. Then, we illustrate this with a case vignette and finally present an institutional regulatory framework that we contend is suitable to facilitate the adoption of the plethora of pervasive e-health solutions today.
Section snippets
Institution-based view
The institution-based view suggests that institutions interact with organizations or networks of organizations by indicating which choices can be acceptable and supportable, that is, institutions reflect “humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction” (page 3 in [46]). These constraints take the shape of regulative, normative, and cognitive structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior (page 33 in [55]). In providing constraints and establishing
Regulatory issues
This section serves to present prominent regulatory issues as they impact pervasive e-health solutions. Such issues include: privacy, quality of online health content, and access to development resources.
Diamond—case vignette
Chronic diseases are incurable diseases, said to be the greatest threat to the nation's health and to its health delivery system. There are five major chronic diseases: cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, heart disease, congestive heart disease), strokes, asthma, cancer, and diabetes (some add a sixth chronic disease, arthritis). These chronic diseases account for 83% of healthcare expenditures in the general population [1].
The focus of this case vignette is on the chronic disease of
Case study findings
Based on our exploratory case study research which subscribed to the recommendations of extant case study research [70], several key emergent themes have become apparent with regarding to the successful adoption of the DiaMonD solution in the Australian healthcare context.
First, given the complex nature and structure of the healthcare delivery system in Australia, at present there exists no clear method to identify how the adoption of a wireless device to assist with providing medical advice
An institutional framework for pervasive e-health
An institutional regulatory setting is generally implemented by organizations with legislative powers, such as regulatory bodies. These regulate the context in which pervasive e-health solutions are developed, deployed, and used. It is vital for such a framework to be well understood by all stakeholders that operate in a healthcare system. Compliance failure can have serious consequences that can range from fines to reputation damage or even operation license loss [14]. Therefore, the
Discussion and conclusion
This paper set out to answer the research question “why do current regulatory regimens fail to facilitate e-health solution adoption and what can/should be done to address such existing barriers?” In order to answer this question we first drew on existing literature. This served to not only provide the motivation and critical need but also assisted us in developing the appropriate themes for our exploratory case study research. In addition, we have presented our initial research findings from
References (70)
Social, ethical and legal barriers to e-health
International Journal of Medical Informatics
(2007)- et al.
The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after 1991
Journal of Management
(2001) - et al.
E-health in the East Asian tigers
International Journal of Medical Informatics
(2004) - et al.
Use of e-health services between 1999 and 2002: a growing digital divide
Journal of the American Medical Association
(2005) Secure e-health: managing risks to patient health data
International Journal of Medical Informatics
(2007)- et al.
Impacts of handset bundling on mobile data usage: the case of Finland
Telecommunications Policy
(2007) - AIHW. Australia's Health 2010: The twelfth biennial health report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare....
Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes
Academy of Management Review
(2001)Cyberspace technological standardization: an institutional theory retrospective
Berkeley Technology Law Journal
(2003)- et al.
e-Health information quality and ethics issues: an exploratory study of consumer perceptions
International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing
(2007)
Self-regulation: who needs it?
Health Affairs
A web of stakeholders and strategies: a case of broadband diffusion in South Korea
Journal of Information Technology
How effective are healthcare web sites for marketers?
Marketing Health Services
The role of intermediating institutions in the diffusion of electronic data interchange (EDI): how industry associations intervened in Denmark, Finland, and Hong Kong
The Information Society
Towards ethical guidelines for e-health: JMIR theme issue on ehealth ethics
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Regulation as a barrier to electronic commerce in Europe: the case of the European fund management industry
European Journal of Information Systems
E-health: technologic revolution meets regulatory constraint
Health Affairs
U-commerce: emerging trends and research issues
Industrial Management & Data Systems
Mobile message services and communications policy
Prometheus
How will the Internet change our health system?
Health Affairs
Experiences of physicians who frequently use email with patients
Health Communication
Introduction
E-health stakeholder consultation and policy context review
Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO) Programme of Research on E-Health
Initial Marketplace Dynamics (incl. Business Models) Analysis (IST-2004-511607 MobiLife)
Institutional factors in information technology innovation
Information Systems Research
Cited by (7)
Supporting the critical role of family carers in wellness management
2017, Health Policy and TechnologyCitation Excerpt :Examples include: wearable devices that track physical activity and promote increased physical fitness [7]; sleep monitors [8]; and hypertension ‘dashboards’ that provide information and bio-feedback to users to encourage behavior change [9]. Second, numerous pervasive e-health solutions have emerged which aim to improve healthcare delivery and reduce costs by enhancing the exchange of clinical, administrative, informational, educational and transactional data [10]. These systems are part of a wider trend towards health care systems that build on decentralized wellness monitoring and management [11].
Problem-driven innovations in drug discovery: Co-evolution of the patterns of radical innovation with the evolution of problems
2016, Health Policy and TechnologyCitation Excerpt :This health policy of commodification of genetic data and other information, through international collaboration of different public and private subjects, can accelerate discovery processes and translate research findings into clinical practice (Figure 5). Moreover, the evolution of technology in oncology can be also supported by an appropriate regulatory framework in “healthcare ecosystem” that improves the communications between developmental phase of new drugs in biopharmaceutical industry and clinical practice (cf. [123,128]). In fact, a modern health policy should support digital governance mechanisms to spur flows of data across subjects involved in drug discovery processes [83].
Perceived Control and Perceived Risk in Self-service Technology Recovery
2022, Journal of Computer Information SystemsEffects of cue congruence and perceived cue authenticity in online group buying
2020, Internet ResearchTaking mhealth forward: Examining the core characteristics
2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealthTrade-offs in designing ICT platforms for independent living services
2016, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation/ International Technology Management Conference, ICE/ITMC 2015
- ☆
A preliminary version of this paper is published in the Proceedings of AMCIS 2012.