Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Somaye Afshari
- . Elahe Khorasani
- . Mohammad Hossein Yarmohammadian 1
- . Golrokh Atighechian 2
- . Mohsen Ghaffari Darab
1 Health Management and Economic Research Centre, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
2 Department of Health in Disaster and Emergency, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Background: Many changes have been made in different sciences by developing and advancing
information and communication technology in last two decades. E‑health is a very broad term that
includes many different activities related to the use of electronic devices, software as well as hardware
in health organizations. Aims: The aim of this study is comparing electronic health indicators in the
selected countries and discussion on the best indicators. Settings and Design: This study has
chosen 12 countries randomly based on the regional division of the WHO. The relevant numbers
of health indicators and general indicators and information technology indicators are extracted
of these countries. We use data from the Bitarf’s comparative study, which is conducted by the
Iranian Supreme Council of Information Technology in 2007. Materials and Methods: By using
Pearson correlation test, the relations between health general indicators and IT indicators are
studied. Statistical Analysis Used: Data was analyzed based on the research objectives using
SPSS software and in accordance with research questions Pearson correlation test were used.
Results: The findings show that there is a positive relation between indicators related to IT and
“Total per capita health, healthy life expectancy, percent literacy”. Furthermore, there is a mutual
relation between IT indicators and “mortality indicator”. Conclusion: This study showed differences
between selective indicators among different countries. The modern world, with its technological
advances, is not powerless in the face of these geographic and health disparity challenges.
Researchers must not rely on the available indicators. They must consider indicators like e‑business
companies, electronic data internet, medical supplies, health electronic record, health information
system, etc., In future, continuous studies in this field, to provide the exact and regular reports of
amount of using of these indicators through different countries must be necessary.
Keywords
specialty in health system. Manage Inf healthc J 2004;2:57‑70.
2. E‑Health in the Medical Field. 2003.
3. WickramasingheN, GuptaJN, SharmaSK. Creating Knowledge‑Based
Healthcare Organizations. United States: United States of America
Idea Group Inc; 2005.
4. Eysenbach G. What is e‑health? J Med Int Res 2001;2001:3.
5. Bitaraf E, Riyazi H, Fathirudsari B. Comparative study of electronic
health in the world. Iran: Minister of technology and Information
of Iran; 2007.
6. Mitchell J. From telehealth to e‑health: The unstoppable rise of
e‑health. Canberra, Australia: National Office for the Information
Technology; 1999.
7. Pagliari C, Sloan D, Gregor P, Sullivan F, Detmer D, Kahan JP, et al.
What is eHealth (4): A scoping exercise to map the Field. J Med
Internet Res 2005;7:e9.
8. Wyatt J. eHealth: What are the likely impacts on patients,
professionals and organisations?, in Netherlands: The Congress
on ICT in Healthcare, Amersfoort; 2003.
9. Ojo T. Communication Networking. ICTs and health information in
Africa information development. United States: Sage Publications;
vol. 22. 2006. p. 94-101.
10. Geissbuhler A, Ly O, Lovis C, L’Haire JF. Telemedicine in Western
Africa: lessons learned from a pilot project in Mali’ perspectives
and recommendations. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003:249‑53.
11. Séror AC. A Case Analysis of INFOMED: The cuban national health
care telecommunications network and portal. J Med Internet Res
2006;8:e1.
12. FrameWork For Information Technology Infrastructure for Health
in India.
13. Kaushal R, Blumenthal D, Poon E. Cost of National Health
Information Network Working Group.The costs of a national health
information network. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:165‑73.
14. Schneider E, Riehl V, Courte‑Wienecke S, Eddy DM, Sennett C.
Enhancing performance measurement: NCQA’s road map for a
health information framework. JAMA 1999;282:184‑90.
15. Sittig D, Shiffman R, Leonard K. A draft framework for measuring
progress towards the development of a National Health Information
Infrastructure. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2005;5:14.
16. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).2001.
Available on: www.dfa.gov.za/au.nepad/nepad.pdf
17. Männistö L, Kelly T, Petrazzini B.Internet and Global Information
Infrastructure in Africa ITU.1996. Available on: www.itu.int/ITU-D/
ict/papers/witwatersrand/tam_tam.pdf World Health Organization.
18. The World Health Report 2006: working together for health.
19. World Health Organisation. Health statistics and health information
systems. Available on: http: //www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/en
20. Monitoring Human Development: Enlarging People’s Choices.
Available on: folk.uio.no/sveinsj/UNDPtabeller.
21. pdf Health Informatics World Wide. Available on: www.hiww.org
22. UNESCO Institute for Statistics-Adult literacy rates. Available on /
www.uis.unesco.org/literacy/Pages/Literacy-adult-youth-2011.aspx
23. Gustafson D, Wyatt J. Evaluation of ehealth systems and services.
Br Med J 2004; 328:1150.
)