Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Digital technologies change the healthcare environment, with several studies suggesting barriers and facilitators to using digital interventions by healthcare professionals (HPs). We consolidated the evidence from existing systematic reviews mentioning barriers and facilitators for the use of digital health technologies by HP. Electronic searches were performed in five databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase^®, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE^®, and Scopus) from inception to March 2023. We included reviews that reported barriers or facilitators factors to use technology solutions among HP. We performed data abstraction, methodological assessment, and certainty of the evidence appraisal by at least two authors. Overall, we included 108 reviews involving physicians, pharmacists, and nurses were included. High-quality evidence suggested that infrastructure and technical barriers (Relative Frequency Occurrence [RFO] 6.4% [95% CI 2.9–14.1]), psychological and personal issues (RFO 5.3% [95% CI 2.2–12.7]), and concerns of increasing working hours or workload (RFO 3.9% [95% CI 1.5–10.1]) were common concerns reported by HPs. Likewise, high-quality evidence supports that training/educational programs, multisector incentives, and the perception of technology effectiveness facilitate the adoption of digital technologies by HPs (RFO 3.8% [95% CI 1.8–7.9]). Our findings showed that infrastructure and technical issues, psychological barriers, and workload-related concerns are relevant barriers to comprehensively and holistically adopting digital health technologies by HPs. Conversely, deploying training, evaluating HP’s perception of usefulness and willingness to use, and multi-stakeholders incentives are vital enablers to enhance the HP adoption of digital interventions.

To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews’ methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people’s digital and health literacy.

Systematic reviews have quantified the effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of digital health technologies (DHTs) used by health-care workers. We aimed to collate available evidence on technologies’ effect on health-care workers’ competencies and performance. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Scopus for reviews published from database inception to March 1, 2023. Studies assessing the effects of DHTs on the organisational, socioeconomic, clinical, and epidemiological levels within the workplace, and on health-care workers’ performance parameters, were included. Data were extracted and clustered into 25 domains using vote counting based on the direction of effect. The relative frequency of occurrence (RFO) of each domain was estimated using R software. AMSTAR-2 tool was used to appraise the quality of reporting, and the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach developed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to analyse the certainty of evidence among included studies. The 12 794 screened reviews generated 132 eligible records for assessment. Top-ranked RFO identifiers showed associations of DHT with the enhancement of health-care workers’ performance (10·9% [95% CI 5·3–22·5]), improvement of clinical practice and management (9·8% [3·9–24·2]), and improvement of care delivery and access to care (9·2% [4·1–20·9]). Our overview found that DHTs positively influence the daily practice of health-care workers in various medical specialties. However, poor reporting in crucial domains is widely prevalent in reviews of DHT, hindering our findings’ generalisability and interpretation. Likewise, most of the included reviews reported substantially more data from high-income countries. Improving the reporting of future studies and focusing on low-income and middle-income countries might elucidate and answer current knowledge gaps.

The recent, rapid development of digital technologies offers new possibilities for more efficient implementation of electronic health record (EHR) and personal health record (PHR) systems. A growing volume of healthcare data has been the hallmark of this digital transformation. The large healthcare datasets' complexity and their dynamic nature pose various challenges related to processing, analysis, storage, security, privacy, data exchange, and usability. We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews to assess technological progress in EHR and PHR systems. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus for systematic literature reviews on technological advancements that support EHR and PHR systems published between January 1, 2010, and October 06, 2020. The searches resulted in a total of 2,448 hits. Of these, we finally selected 23 systematic reviews. Most of the included papers dealt with information extraction tools and natural language processing technology (n = 10), followed by studies that assessed the use of blockchain technology in healthcare (n = 8). Other areas of digital technology research included EHR and PHR systems in austere settings (n = 1), de-identification methods (n = 1), visualization techniques (n = 1), communication tools within EHR and PHR systems (n = 1), and methodologies for defining Clinical Information Models that promoted EHRs and PHRs interoperability (n = 1). Technological advancements can improve the efficiency in the implementation of EHR and PHR systems in numerous ways. Natural language processing techniques, either rule-based, machine-learning, or deep learning-based, can extract information from clinical narratives and other unstructured data locked in EHRs and PHRs, allowing secondary research (i.e., phenotyping). Moreover, EHRs and PHRs are expected to be the primary beneficiaries of the blockchain technology implementation on Health Information Systems. Governance regulations, lack of trust, poor scalability, security, privacy, low performance, and high cost remain the most critical challenges for implementing these technologies.

Regulatory frameworks for artificial intelligence (AI) are needed to mitigate risks while ensuring the ethical, secure, and effective implementation of AI technology in healthcare and population health. In this article, we present a synthesis of 141 binding policies applicable to AI in healthcare and population health in the EU and 10 European countries. The EU AI Act sets the overall regulatory framework for AI, while other legislations set social, health, and human rights standards, address the safety of technologies and the implementation of innovation, and ensure the protection and safe use of data. Regulation specifically pertaining to AI is still nascent and scarce, though a combination of data, technology, innovation, and health and human rights policy has already formed a baseline regulatory framework for AI in health. Future work should explore specific regulatory challenges, especially with respect to AI medical devices, data protection, and data enablement.