Background

JMIR

J Med Internet Res

Journal of Medical Internet Research

1438-8871

JMIR Publications

Toronto, Canada

v25i1e41512

37289482

10.2196/41512

Review

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

Mavragani

Amaryllis

Hedenstrom

Margot

Eriksen

Jeppe

Sullivan

Clair

Eden

Rebekah

Konopik

Jens

MSc 1

Institute of Management Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Lange Gasse 20

Nuremberg, 90403

Germany 49 911 5302 95 383 jens.konopik@fau.de

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3173-3384

Blunck

Dominik

Dr 1

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8843-2411

1 Institute of Management Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Nuremberg

Germany

Corresponding Author: Jens Konopik jens.konopik@fau.de

2023

8 6 2023

e41512

29 7 2022 2 11 2022 14 12 2022 7 4 2023

©Jens Konopik, Dominik Blunck. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 08.06.2023.

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.

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.

digital transformation health care Healthcare 4.0 digital health eHealth conceptual model literature review grounded theory integrative review

Introduction Overview

Digital transformation has gained an important role in strategic management research [1]. Vial [2] describes digital transformation in the most widely accepted definition as “a process that aims to improve an entity by triggering significant changes to its properties through combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies.” Digital transformation improves an entity and redefines its value proposition for its stakeholders [3], thus having implications for the whole structure of the entity [4].

Due to the widespread implications of digital transformation, it is of high priority among the vast majority of organizations [5]. This also includes the health care sector as one of the most critical economic, social, and political part of societies [6]. Digital transformation is expected to be the key driver of clinical outcomes [7] and is fundamental to cost-saving initiatives [8]. It offers great possibilities for stakeholders in the health care sector to fundamentally change the provision of services [9]. Despite the constant introduction of new technologies, this disruptive change is yet to materialize [10]. Although the health care sector has been ever evolving, to this date, this sector is evolving at a very slow pace [11-13]. This leads to the health care sector being considered a latecomer industry when it comes to the introduction of digital transformation [14]. Although the substantial impact of specific digital technologies in health care has been widely discussed [15], the wide-ranging impact of digital transformation has hardly been discussed. Consequently, academic research focusing on a holistic perspective of digital transformation in the health care sector has been underrepresented [16].

Characteristics of Digital Transformation in Health Care

Vial’s [2] widely accepted definition of digital transformation highlights the substantial changes to an entity with the means of (digital) technologies. Other analyses focusing on definitions [3], models and frameworks [17], or characteristics and drivers of digital transformation [18] unanimously confirm the crucial role of digital technologies as the central means of disruption. Digital technologies refer to combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies or technologies that are new for the respective entity and cause strategic alignment of business processes. This includes technologies that are commonly referred to as disruptive technologies [19]. Despite the highly regulated nature of the health care sector [20], it has recently witnessed a growth in the adoption of novel technologies [21]. Alluding to the intertwining of physical and software components and the incorporation of novel information and communications technologies into corporations, known as Industry 4.0, the academic literature refers to this development in the health care sector as Healthcare 4.0. It constitutes the technology-enabled shift to patient-centered organizational structures that enable real-time customization of health care for patients [22] based on a data-driven predictive medicine approach [23].

In this study, the term entity refers to “an individual organization, business network, industry, and society” [3] in the health care sector. This broad interpretation of the term highlights the wide-ranging impact of digital transformation and the imperative need to consider whole value networks instead of single organizations [24,25]. Fundamental changes in business and organizational activities, processes, competencies, and business models [26] are fueled by ecosystem possibilities. Digital transformation facilitates the cocreation of value among various stakeholders by the combination of complementarities and interdependencies between entities inside the network [27] to address large, complex problems [28]. This allows actors in the health care sector to shift their business models from simply providing reactive medical care toward prevention, chronic disease management, and the joint and holistic delivery of health [29].

The outcome of digital transformation is a strategic alignment that drives both capability-driven changes (eg, business model innovation and radical changes in offerings to customers) as well as efficiency and productivity changes (eg, cost reduction and error elimination) [2,3,30]. This results in major changes to the creation of value of the organization as well as to its stakeholders. These 2, however, are often interconnected, as network effects of digital and connected services are increasingly becoming the key differentiator and driver of value creation [30].

Problem Statement, Aim, and Research Questions

The adoption of digital technologies in digital transformation is accompanied by the redefinition of the meaning of health and the provision of related services [31]. Contrary to the expectations of scholars, the digital transformation of the health care sector in general is underrepresented in academic discussions [16]. With most studies providing a narrow perspective on the application of novel technologies in the health care sector [32], only few perspectives focus on the holistic nature of digital transformation, encompassing society and organizations of the sector alike [31]. This void of research on unifying perspectives impedes discussions on fundamental shifts in the health care sector [33]. A unifying perspective is necessary to foster a common understanding of the changing nature of the sector and to facilitate the evaluation of practitioners and academic scholars of strategic actions inside the sector alike. This is particularly valuable for policy makers to guide regulatory measures as well as organizational entities in the sector to structure their strategic decision-making.

Recent publications have therefore called for further discussions on the new perceptions of health among various stakeholders [34] and the perception of value in the health care sector in general [35]. With the digital transformation being overdue in the health care sector and the ongoing mindset shift among stakeholders [11], this calls for a reevaluation of the current state of digital transformation in health care. To the best of our knowledge, however, no evidence-based study has assessed digital transformation in the health care sector from a holistic perspective.

Accordingly, this study answers two research questions: (1) What impact does digital transformation have on the value creation of the most essential stakeholders? and (2) What impact does digital transformation have on the relationships among the most essential stakeholders? To answer these questions, we derived evidence-based results from a systematic integrative review, supported by grounded theory. These results were then synthesized into a unifying model.

Methods Overview

This section describes the 2-staged methodology used in this qualitative study. First, we identified the most relevant stakeholders in the health care sector using a scoping review approach. On the basis of these results, we followed the integrative review process by Whittemore and Knafl [36], which is shaped by a systematic literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis, to identify relevant articles to answer both research questions. To systematize the results in this emerging and growing stream of research, the principles of conceptual modeling theory were applied. These include the combination of various concepts, key factors, or constructs [37-40]; the explanation of the presumed relationships between these concepts or constructs [37,39,40]; and the provision of a soft interpretation [41] of the intentions of the involved entities via a graphical form [39,42].

Stakeholders in the Health Care Sector

Although the literature provides some concepts of stakeholder classifications for the health care sector, their ability to generalize the stakeholder landscape in health care remains unclear. To create good prerequisites for the following integrative review and to ensure an adequate fit to the desired level of abstraction in our study, an appropriate stakeholder concept must be derived from the literature. To break the trade-off between efficiency and quality at this stage, a scoping review approach was chosen, as it is suggested for identifying key characteristics and factors related to a concept [43].

On the basis of this scoping review approach, a nonsystematic literature search was conducted. Search terms such as stakeholders and health care were used in Google and Google Scholar to identify relevant concepts. Extensive forward and backward searches further augmented the results. Following the World Health Organization’s definition of a health system, results must aim to provide a holistic representation of the health care sector and identify entities (eg, organizations, people, and institutions) [44] participating in it.

The results were then analyzed based on a grounded theory approach by Strauss and Corbin [45], with a generic level of abstraction needed for a holistic conceptualization of the health care sector. Stakeholders should be analyzed based on the core value they provide for the ecosystem itself or other stakeholders in the system. The initial coding process consisted of a word-by-word analysis of the identified stakeholder concepts. Identified stakeholders were coded in vivo, that is, in the exact form they appear in the stakeholder concepts [46]. In the next stage, axial coding, the identified stakeholders were grouped together into higher-order categories. For example, the stakeholders “hospitals,” “rehab center,” and “clinicians” were grouped into the higher-order category “medical treatments.” During this stage, the categorizations were constantly checked and regrouped until a sound categorization of the stakeholders was achieved, following the Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive (MECE) principle. In the last stage, the selective coding stage, the final codes of the stakeholder categorization were identified. At this stage, data of little or no importance to the core categories and supporting properties were filtered [47]. This step involved repeated revisions of the results until the stakeholders in the health care sector were ultimately identified.

The scoping review yielded 12 relevant stakeholder conceptualizations [31,48-58]. The goal of the conceptual model, to focus on the most crucial elements of the health care sector, guided the subsequent coding process. This led to the identification of 96 relevant in vivo segments, which were subsequently grouped into higher-order concepts to derive relevant stakeholders. Notably, because of their broad scope or lack of clarity, a total of 15 segments could not be grouped with other stakeholders.

Integrative Review Search Strategy

Conducting the integrative review, we complied with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for Scoping Reviews statement, and the completed checklist is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1 [59]. Before the actual literature search, a pilot search was conducted to assess the feasibility of the literature search and to identify relevant keywords. This step indicated that a large number of potentially relevant articles associated digital transformation in health care with terms such as “Health Care 4.0,” “Healthcare 4.0,” and “Health 4.0.” Furthermore, no relevant synonyms for the term “digital transformation” could be identified in Web of Science or PubMed articles. Test runs in databases showed that the identification of relevant articles would not benefit from adding specific technologies to the search terms, as these terms are predominantly accompanied by digital transformation–related and Healthcare 4.0–related constructs.

Accordingly, the search term (health* AND digital transformation) OR Health Care 4.0 OR Healthcare 4.0 OR Health 4.0 was used to combine the domains of health care and digital transformation.

The databases Web of Science, PubMed, and Dimensions were chosen to carry out the literature search. Web of Science and PubMed qualify as principal resources for literature searches and capture the involved disciplines [60]. Dimensions complements these 2 databases by providing a larger data set and additional nonindexed publications [61]. The search terms were generated in compliance with the specific syntax requirements of each of the databases (Multimedia Appendix 2).

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the research questions. First, the search results must address the spectrum of digital transformation in the context of the health care sector. Strategic changes to an entity must be triggered by digital technologies. As inductively derived from the relevant literature [2,3,30], and described in the Introduction section, these responses must either improve the efficiency and effectiveness of internal processes of an organization, satisfy needs inside the ecosystem better or at lower costs than existing options, or redefine either its value proposition for or the relationship with its stakeholders. A mere digitization of a process without further strategic implications would not be sufficient to meet this criterion. Second, the entities referred to in the first criterion must include at least 1 of the identified stakeholders. Furthermore, articles must be written in German or English (Table 1). Regarding the date of publication, we decided not to further limit the results. Although the literature indicates that the vast majority of high-quality publications on digital transformation emerged after 2010 [62], a pilot search revealed that only a fraction of the search results is expected to be published before 2010, allowing the inclusion of these results with reasonable effort. Two independent researchers screened and evaluated the identified records. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus (Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flow diagram [63]).

Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Scope of digital transformation	Strategic change to entity triggered by digital technologies	No strategic change
Outcome of strategic change	Improved efficiency or effectiveness of internal processes [2,3], improved satisfaction of needs inside the ecosystem or satisfied at lower cost [3,30], and redefinition of value proposition or relationship [2,3,30]	Unspecified or other outcomes
Considered entities	Identified stakeholders	Other entities than stakeholders
Language	English or German	Not English or German

Figure 1

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram describing the literature search (adapted from the study by Page et al [63]). WoS: Web of Science.

The systematic database search for the integrative review process yielded 2505 records, of which 140 (5.59%) were considered relevant (Figure 1).

Data Evaluation

Although the methodology by Whittemore and Knafl [36] suggests a data evaluation stage, no traditional quality assessment of the included search results was performed. This is because the pilot search revealed that insights into the impact of digital transformation on relevant stakeholders, as the unit of analysis of this study, are often only a byproduct or one of many elements of interest of the relevant literature. This phenomenon has also been observed by Paré et al [64], who proposed to consider the relevance (thematic fit of the study) and rigor as the 2 dimensions to judge the results. Consequently, to incorporate inputs straddling various research streams and originating from a heterogeneous range of study designs, rather than limiting the results to studies meeting specific methodological standards [65,66], no conventional quality appraisal methods from other aggregative reviews, such as quality checklists, were used. Instead, the results were required to meet the inclusion criteria mentioned in the Search Strategy subsection in the Methods section.

Data Analysis

During the data analysis stage, grounded theory [45] was used to systematically structure the insights from the identified relevant literature. According to a comparison of theory-building methods [67], grounded theory is particularly valuable for generating new insights through the continuous interplay between analysis and data collection. It is an inductive-driven qualitative research method used for the conceptual development phase of the theory-building process [67], which makes it an appropriate method for this study.

For the actual data analysis, the MAXQDA software (version 2020.4.2; VERBI GmbH), a tool for computer-assisted qualitative and mixed methods data analysis [68], was used. The included literature was analyzed line by line to detect statements that refer to digital transformation, health care, and value creation. The first step was open coding, wherein the relevant segments were coded in vivo. An exemplary segment is “[p]atients are facing a multitude of new services and channels to manage their health condition, and new ways of patient interaction might stimulate the occurrence of new business models” [69]. Subsequently, axial coding was used to examine similarities and differences between the generated codes. Similar text segments were aggregated into higher-order categories. During this step, segments such as those aforementioned could be aggregated into several categories, depending on their connection to concepts of relationships or value creation as well as to the identified stakeholder groups. In the case of the exemplary segment, the applied categories include the stakeholder groups of patients and providers as well as categories relating to changes in relationships and patient engagement. In addition, the principles of theoretical sampling were used to enrich the generated data. Theoretical sampling builds on the “all is data” principle in grounded theory, implying that everything the researcher discovers while studying is potentially relevant data [70,71]. It involves inductive reasoning, by generating a general abstraction from particular instances, and determines the selection of concepts and categories that will be further developed over the course of the data analysis [70]. During this step, constant comparisons between the coded segments and the defined higher-order categories resulted in continued revisions of the code structure and its underlying assumptions. After this step, selective coding was used to systematically relate findings to each other and to further refine existing categories into 1 cohesive conceptual model. The text segments were further analyzed quantitatively (ie, frequencies and contingency tables) to assess the relevance of the identified fields. After numerous revisions, a sophisticated level of theoretical saturation was achieved (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Illustration of the grounded theory process to develop the conceptual model.

This process resulted in the identification of clusters of value creation for the respective stakeholder groups. Figure 3 provides further insights into the resulting clusters of value creation and the underlying identified concepts in a visualization style adapted from Gioia et al [72].

Figure 3

Data structure, with the number of coded segments in parentheses (visualization style adapted from Gioia et al [72]). AI: artificial intelligence; IoT: Internet of Things.

The same approach was applied to evaluate digital transformation–triggered changes in the relationships among stakeholders. The initial concepts were derived from the identification of text segments involving ≥2 relevant stakeholders. The underlying dynamics describing the changes in the relationships were then aggregated in a similar way as described for the changes in value creation in this section.

Results Overview

The Results section is structured as follows. First, the most essential stakeholder groups identified are described. Second, the impact of digital transformation on the value creation of each of the stakeholders is examined. Third, the relationships, shaped by the digital transformation, among the stakeholders are analyzed. A graphical representation of the conceptual model synthesizing the insights is presented in the Discussion section.

Stakeholders in the Health Care Sector

As mentioned in the Methods section, the underlying principle of differentiation of the stakeholders was the value they provide for the ecosystem itself or other stakeholders in the system. Consequently, entities representing an organization, such as hospitals, or an individual, such as local physicians, were grouped together. Although they differ by internal processes, they do not differ in terms of their core value proposition for the system in general. Ultimately, 4 stakeholder groups were identified: governing institutions, payers, providers, and patients. Table 2 provides an excerpt of the underlying coding structure by presenting the stakeholders and the respective first-level subcategories. The stakeholder groups are defined in the following paragraph.

Table 2

Stakeholder groups and first-level subcategories.

Stakeholder group, description or definition, and example				Segment, n
Governing institutions
	Regulating bodies (both national and international) that define regulatory standards for the health care sector, affecting at least 1 of the other identified stakeholders
		Higher order or unspecified	11
		Government (legislative, executive, and judicial)	5
Payers
	Organizations specialized on the reimbursement of providers of medical treatments for the treatment of patients
		Insurances	6
		Higher order or unspecified	6
		Other payers	3
Providers
	Provision of medical treatments to patients by organizations or individual physicians
		Medical treatments	16
		Medical products suppliers	6
		Higher order or unspecified	5
		Support functions	3
		Retail	2
		Additional services	1
Patients
	Receiver of medical treatments
		Patients	11
		Patient advocacy groups	6
Other (not considered for research process)^a
	Wider society			13
	Unspecified			2

^aThe 15 segments that could not be matched with the 4 main stakeholders were grouped in the “other” section.

The stakeholder group governing institutions considers relevant regulatory bodies (both national and international) that define regulatory standards for the health care sector, affecting at least 1 of the other identified stakeholders. The stakeholder group payers refers to organizations specialized in the reimbursement of providers of medical treatments for the treatment of patients. Providers focus on the most pivotal type of service, that is, the provision of medical treatments to patients by organizations or individual physicians. Patients are an essential part of the vast majority of stakeholder concepts. For reasons of model complexity and clarity, other groups such as patient advocacy groups were not considered. The stakeholder group patients is defined as the receiver of medical treatments.

Integrative Review

This section presents the results of the integrative review, in particular, on the value creation of stakeholders and the relationships among the stakeholders.

Overview of the Results of the Integrative Review

A complete list of all the included literature results is provided in Multimedia Appendix 3 [9,20,21,23,69,73-207], and the design and type of publication are presented in Table 3. The coding process resulted in the coding of 752 text segments in 140 literature results. This extensive collection of data allowed for the identification of initial focal points of the subject area.

Table 3

Design and type of the included literature (N=140).

Category			Values, n (%)
Study design
	Qualitative, conceptual research	87 (62.1)
	Review articles	30 (21.4)
	Editorials, letters, or viewpoints	16 (11.4)
	Quantitative research	7 (5)
Publication type
	Journal article	99 (70.7)
	Book chapter	21 (15)
	Conference paper	19 (13.6)
	Magazine article	1 (0.7)

Value Creation Overview

A co-occurrence analysis shows how often text segments have been assigned certain codes. Looking at both cornerstones of the conceptual model—value creation and relationships—certain trends are observable. The co-occurrence of value creation–related codes with stakeholder codes showed that the value creation of providers (90 segments), followed by patients (50 segments), received the most attention in the literature. Governing institutions (37 segments) and payers (11 segments) were less often addressed in the literature.

Value Creation of Providers

The value creation of providers received the most attention in the identified literature. Similar to the effects of digital transformation on process efficiency and quality improvements in manufacturing [208], the coding process showed that the most dominant changes to the value creation of providers in the health care sector are improved process efficiency (29 segments) as well as improved quality of their medical treatments (28 segments). Another relevant aspect is the improvement in diagnostics (22 segments). The ability to provide personalized treatments (9 segments), increased availability of health care (3 segments), and the ability to gain big data insights (3 segments) are relevant aspects as well.

Artificial intelligence (AI) allows for efficiency improvements throughout the treatment process, from admission and diagnostics to treatment and administrative tasks [120,126,166]. More specifically, in combination with other technologies, AI allows for the automated interpretation of injuries and diseases [126,166], accelerates the decision-making process of physicians [82,120], and can automatically modify electronic medical records [166].

Although big data is necessary to enable such a use of AI [126], it also alters the value creation by itself. Big data and information sharing enable the efficient flow of medical information across different providers [150], thus enabling decisions on timely data [133,137], reducing waiting times in subsequent processes [144].

Mobile and wearable devices and apps allow for process efficiency improvements by supporting the workflows of both nursing staff [145] and physicians [144]. In addition, time-consuming activities such as the monitoring of equipment [191] and patients [87,94,179] can be automated.

Improvements in the quality of treatments are mainly attributed to the emergence of AI and big data in medical environments. AI is used along the value chain of medical treatments. It facilitates knowledge management inside the provider organization [114], monitors and evaluates the health status of patients [79,111], proposes recommendations on treatments [128], and supports the decision-making process regarding medical treatments [23,82] and prescriptions [88,133]. This also leads to a reduction in medical errors [116]. The key mechanism is leveraging the knowledge in large data sets for the automated evaluation of current cases. Although AI does not make the final decision, it still greatly supports the physicians in charge.

Without further specifications of the involved technologies, all elements of technology are dynamically connected in a closed loop to continuously improve medical interventions [175], to facilitate new therapeutic procedures [177], and to improve the patient journey [78].

Improvements in diagnostics are primarily related to the advancements and interactions of certain technologies. Technologies such as the Internet of Things, mobile and wearable devices, and telemedicine allow the collection of patient-related data. This can be achieved in an automated fashion via interconnected sensors [122,165,191] or through remote consultations supported by telemedicine technologies [108]. This enables the merging of data sets from different sources [105,122]. Finally, AI applications analyze these data sets to predict and classify health conditions [96,195]. It also enables the large-scale analysis of computed tomography scans and x-rays in an automated fashion [152,185,186].

Value Creation of Patients

The digital transformation leads to fundamental changes in the self-conception of patients and how they are engaged in medical decisions and procedures. Thus, patients are increasingly taking an active part in the treatment process. This leverages efficiencies inside the system, which can consequently be characterized as the value creation of patients. In line with changes to the patient-provider relationship, the ongoing empowerment of patients does not necessarily shift value creation away from providers but increases value creation efforts on the patient side. Regarding the coding of segments, 3 distinct clusters could be identified: decision empowerment and engagement (33 segments), self-treatment (14 segments), and disease prevention (6 segments).

Mobile and wearable devices and apps, in addition to the strive of patients to control their health-related tasks [159,192], facilitate the evolution of patients into prosumers, cocreating value with health care providers [157]. Wearable devices allow patients to constantly monitor their health parameters [21,129,177] and communicate relevant insights with their health care providers [150,160]. Integrated decision support systems [186] and personalized recommendations [97] help patients to further evaluate their health status and propose treatment options. The constant availability of monitoring options encourages patients to observe the cause and effect related to their symptoms and treatment procedures [137,147].

Although the literature is often vague about specific technologies involved in the self-treatment process and the process itself [87,100,176], parts of the literature highlight the major role of mobile and wearable devices and apps. These technologies allow patients to self-test for certain conditions [161] and assist in the treatment of conditions. The combination of integrated sensors of these devices allows for an effective monitoring and evaluation, followed by subsequent suggestions for self-treatment activities [23,84,164]. The integration of gamification elements [189] leads to an approach that promotes patient engagement in the process [79].

The interconnectedness of a wide range of digital health technologies [199] encourages patients (or in this case, citizens) to take better care of themselves [190], which further shifts the attention of patients from treatment of diseases to disease prevention [159,192].

Value Creation of Governing Institutions

The literature characterizes the value creation of governing institutions as a supporting role for the other stakeholders of the health care sector. The clusters describing the value creation of governing institutions are as follows: facilitate innovation (15 segments), define standards (12 segments), data security and privacy (8 segments), increased health care quality (5 segments), interoperability (4 segments), increased availability of health care (3 segments), increased health care efficiency (2 segments), and increased health care affordability (2 segments).

The changing value creation of governing institutions is closely linked to network-like collaboration systems in the provider–governing institutions relationship (refer to the Provider–Governing Institutions Relationship subsection). In general, governing institutions are expected to play a more active role in the further optimization efforts of the health care sector [130]. As new business models emerge that challenge existing regulatory frameworks [135], participants in the health care sector are limited in their innovation aspirations by strict regulations [207]. One of the reasons for this is the lack of capabilities and capacities of the respective institutions to integrate innovations fast enough into regulations [20,183]. Consequently, the role of governing institutions in modern health systems exceeds that of evaluating specific technological solutions. Instead, the role shifts toward creating incentives that foster collaboration [140] and steer the development and adoption of technological solutions that contribute to effective health systems [158,196].

To enable the creation of effective health systems, interoperability has to be ensured, which requires the definition of certain standards and data security and privacy regulations. Consistent standards help to guarantee functioning solutions [92,193] and drive all actors toward the holistic vision of the health care system [168]. It also reduces the risk of investments in digital solutions of other participants in the health care sector [202]. Regarding patients, a lack of standards may lead to decreased trust in the system [188]; thus, privacy concerns may delay the adoption of digital solutions [96,136,139]. Consistent standards also enable the ability to address the global health goals [206] by supporting real-time health data assessment across national borders [204]. In general, governing institutions must achieve the right balance between public autonomy and privacy requirements [115] to support value creation within the health care sector.

Value Creation of Payers

The increasingly connected relationship between payers and providers, for example, enabled by digital platforms, allows payers to become involved in the processes of providers [197]. Digitalized processes and data allow for efficiency increases [149], such as accelerating the processing of insurance claims [86,151]. Increased connectivity also facilitates the adoption of flexible payment systems, designed to accommodate for specified outcomes, across multiple health care settings [118]. Technologies such as blockchain are even capable of automating the distribution of funds via smart contracts while ensuring immutable data trails that lead to better fraud detection and overall better decision-making [174,187]. The identified clusters of value creation are as follows: increased process efficiency (5 segments), fund distribution (4 segments), better decision-making (2 segments), and overall health care quality improvements (1 segments).

Relationships Overview

The analysis of relationship-coded segments shows how often text segments are assigned a relationship-related code and at least 2 stakeholder codes (Table 4). The patient-provider relationship received the most attention in the literature, accounting for almost one-third (39/120, 32.5%) of all assigned relationship codes. On an individual stakeholder level, the relationships of providers with others receive the most attention (54/120, 45% segments) and those of governing institutions receive the least attention (9/120, 7.5% segments).

Table 4

Co-occurrence of stakeholders in relationship-coded text segments (n=120).

	Patients (number of co-occurrences), n	Providers (number of co-occurrences), n	Payers (number of co-occurrences), n	Governing institutions (number of co-occurrences), n	Segment, n (%)
Patients	N/A^a	39	5	0	44 (36.7)
Providers	39	N/A	7	8	54 (45)
Payers	5	7	N/A	1	13 (10.8)
Governing institutions	0	8	1	N/A	9 (7.5)

^aN/A: not applicable.

Patient-Provider Relationship

The patient-provider relationship under digital transformation received the most attention in the literature. It is shaped by 3 key findings: initiating contact, equal partnerships, and weakening of direct links.

Technological advancements facilitate the initiation of the patient-provider contact. In particular, telemedicine removes physical and mental barriers and allows patients to make better choices regarding preferred providers [84,141,197]. Advancements in information and communications technology have simplified the process of booking an appointment [95,99,209].

The most common change is related to the strengthening of the patient-provider relationship. Increased access to one’s own medical information allows patients to communicate in an effective [101,113,115,162,175] and safe [156] way with providers. This also enables patients to be more engaged in the treatment process [110,129,160]. In addition, optimizations in providers’ workflows allow them to spend more time with patients [201]. Ultimately, patients and providers will become equal partners in the treatment process to make medical decisions [123,182].

Advancements in platform developments have reached the medical field. This redefines the link between patients and providers. Platforms play an active role through the allocation of data from various sources and subsequent processing. Owing to the large number of potential stakeholders, platforms distribute the data according to patients’ preferences [124]. As a consequence, large parts of the patient-provider interactions are facilitated and managed by intermediaries such as platforms, weakening the direct link between patients and providers [23,69,86,95].

Patient-Payer Relationship

Only a fraction of the literature discusses the patient-payer relationship. However, digital technologies enable an easier exchange of information between patients and payers [111]. The interactions between these 2 stakeholder groups are predominantly simplified [194] through the help of intermediaries such as digital platforms [86]. This further facilitates the desire of patients to be involved in the decision-making processes of payers regarding adequate interventions and diagnosis [197].

Patient–Governing Institutions Relationship

Although the relationships between patients and governing institutions in our society are apparent, no text segments indicating substantial digital transformation–related changes to the patient–governing institutions relationship could be identified.

Provider-Payer Relationship

The provider-payer relationship is mainly characterized by an increasing connectivity, leading to closer collaborations. This connectivity does not necessarily have to be a direct link but can be achieved through an intermediary, orchestrating the distribution of data [86], and is motivated by the desire to reduce barriers and costs [73,111,175]. However the relationships are managed, novel technologies such as blockchain facilitate the strengthening of relationships by allowing for higher trust in the transparency and security of the system [194], as well as efficiency improvements [187], needed for the provision of innovative care models [202].

Provider–Governing Institutions Relationship

The provider–governing institutions relationship is characterized by the exploitation of network capabilities. The ongoing interconnectedness of these 2 stakeholders bolsters collaboration and causes more linkages that require closer relationships. This is shown by the construction of political and legislative guidelines, where both parties rest together to determine the terms [135]. This leads to the appropriate design of network-like collaboration systems [73], where governing institutions usually take the role of the resource allocator [118,119,171]. Other types of collaborations are characterized by structured transformation programs that require a close relationship between these 2 stakeholders [140,169].

Payer–Governing Institutions Relationship

There are no indications in the identified literature that the payer–governing institutions relationship is influenced substantially by digital transformation. Changes to this relationship are mainly characterized by the participation of these 2 groups in health care ecosystems, where information is exchanged [73].

Discussion Conceptual Model of the Health Care Sector Under Digital Transformation Unifying Perspective on Health Care

The research process allowed for the constant integration of new findings and was neither limited to the elaborations in the Introduction section nor to the findings in the Results section. The following sections synthesize the in-depth view on the impact of digital transformation on the health care sector and derive a visual representation of a conceptual model (Figure 4). The model exemplifies the need to consider other participating entities and the need for a holistic perspective on the collective actions of participants in the health care sector. The following sections elaborate the characterizations of the new elements introduced in the model.

Figure 4

Conceptual model of the health care sector under digital transformation.

Intermediaries in the Health Care Sector

During the research process, the need to consider participants other than the 4 stakeholders, identified from the existing stakeholder models, emerged. As described in the Relationships subsection in the Results section, intermediaries play an important role in managing and distributing relevant data toward different entities [128,197].

However, the literature does not yet provide a clear conceptualization of these intermediaries. The necessity of these intermediaries predominantly stems from the financial and technological limitations of existing players in the health care sector to develop technology-based health solutions [69,103]. Specifically, other stakeholders are limited in their capabilities to process large amounts of data [103] or even gather data from multiple sources in the health care sector. With advanced data collection, processing, and preparation capabilities [21,164], intermediaries are able to cross-link information to derive new insights for various actors in the sector [198]. As a result, value creation becomes more modular and additive, allowing for solutions tailored to specific use cases [69,157].

The literature often referred to platforms [69,86,95] or ecosystems [73,161] as necessary entities to orchestrate this exchange of data. However, the conflicting interests of the societal perspective of research for the common good based on health data and the individuals’ perspective of privacy concerns and fair compensation for the donation of data are more relevant than ever [155,210]. The health care industry is already moving toward complex interacting multisided markets [157] to substitute the potentials of a much-needed connected digital infrastructure across borders [73].

Discussions on the appropriate conceptualizations of these types of intermediaries are therefore intensifying. To avoid the well-known monopolistic tendencies in such constructs [69], various initiatives are fostering discussions on other conceptualizations of intermediaries. Data spaces and federated data ecosystems in health care [211,212] are the driving force behind discussions regarding the consideration of health care data as common good or public asset [213] and data privacy, sovereignty, and trust [118,214]. The current dynamics in this field do not permit a precise specification of these intermediaries, as new research streams are adding even more ambiguity. Consequently, this model can serve as a starting point for future specifications of these intermediary entities.

The Virtually Integrated Health Care Ecosystem

The shift from linear value chains to multisided markets requires a different perspective on the health care sector. The creation of value for different stakeholders increasingly occurs through complex collaborations among stakeholders, sometimes provisioning services that could not be offered otherwise [119]. The cocreation of value is enabled by interconnected systems [161] and the continuous exchange of information within the network [155,172]. This exemplifies the need for a holistic perspective on health care ecosystems to ensure the necessary coordination of various actors according to common goals [73,144].

The term “virtually integrated health care ecosystem” illustrates the dualism emerging in the health care sector. Certainly, tighter relationships and coordinated efforts typically increase efficiency by driving specialization in the value network. However, extensive sharing of information allows for the collective creation of personalized modular values for actors inside the system. Virtual integration differs from other arrangements with partners by treating them as if they were inside the organization [215,216]. The term “virtual integration” was originally coined by Michael Dell, describing similar benefits from a business model perspective [215]. However, the health care sector with its low digital transformation maturity level and the high level of dynamism of digital transformation could cause distortions that challenge the viability of the concept of a virtually integrated health care ecosystem.

Principal Findings

This study systematizes the relevant academic literature at the intersection of digital transformation and health care. The aim was to provide a conceptual model, giving a holistic view on the sector that goes beyond the technological aspects. The results were obtained from a systematic literature search. The aggregation of qualitative data was conducted using a grounded theory approach, which is an inductive and systematic data analysis methodology that yields strong descriptive and explanatory power at the intersection of theory and data [67]. We provide an in-depth overview of the relevant literature through the lenses of value creation of, and relationships among, stakeholders. The conceptual model highlights the interdependencies of various stakeholders in the health care sector. In addition, digital transformation forces stakeholders to adapt an ecosystem way of operating, accepting the principles of value cocreation and the central role of intermediaries.

Implications

From a theoretical point of view, the results are intended to guide further discussions on digital transformation in health care. To the best of our knowledge, no other publications conceptualizing a holistic view on the health care sector under digital transformation exist.

However, other scholars have also identified the crucial role of digital technologies or digital capabilities in supporting value creation innovation in health care. In intraorganizational settings, Gopal et al [20] described the interplay among intraorganizational data providers, the generation of insights through advanced technologies, and the exploitation of these insights in business processes. Ghosh et al [217] highlighted the role of information technology capabilities in creating new value propositions inside organizations. An imperative element is the ability to integrate new data into the organization. In a home-based recovery setting, Dimitrov [128] highlighted the need for an entity to distribute information across entities inside the health care systems. From a microlevel perspective, these conceptualizations implicitly highlight the need for interorganizational data exchange and the lack of respective capabilities of the current health care stakeholders to orchestrate such an exchange.

Other streams of research in information systems literature consider the workforce transformation [218] or the transformation process of organizational change [219], both driven by technological change. Although the microlevel perspective is common for transformation process conceptualizations, it is worth considering that key elements such as the impact of technologies on the external and internal dimensions of organizations are key elements of these models as well.

Therefore, the proposed conceptual model of this study follows the commonly agreed upon key drivers and dimensions of digital transformation. However, it provides a novel perspective on the interrelations among the actors in the health care sector. Therefore, it can be the foundation of further evaluations of the strategic actions of actors and their effects on other actors or the health care ecosystem itself. Specifically, in the context of ecosystem-enabled value creation activities, the model can guide paths to answer questions of interest at the scientific level.

The conceptual model introduced intermediaries as participants in the health care ecosystem. In this model, these intermediaries are mainly related to the exchange of information within the system. The literature, however, views these intermediaries as a heterogeneous group, for example, consisting of so-called big tech companies [164], start-ups [21,198], or unspecified actors [118]. The reduction of this heterogeneous group to the core value it introduces into the sector strengthens the generalizing perspective of this study. Considering that this study aims to lay the groundwork for a unified perspective on the digital transformation in the health care sector, this allows for further examinations of specific parts of the model in the future.

From a practical point of view, providers are becoming increasingly dependent on intermediaries as essential parts of the value creation and patient interaction are enabled by outside actors. Providers might face a lock-in effect when intermediaries manage to establish de facto standards that are outside of the providers’ control. To avoid future negative strategic positions, providers are encouraged to establish their own intermediary entities to maintain control over the essential parts of the patient journey.

Patients are experiencing a growing influence in the health care sector. With technology allowing a plethora of ways to provide and evaluate value, patients are becoming more selective in their decisions. Skepticism regarding data privacy and protection forces other actors to pay special attention to the interests of patients. Technology-enabled empowerment of patients not only levels the playing field between individual patients and providers but also increases the influence of patient advocacy groups [220,221]. These groups might strive to advance into an intermediary position to take control of the information distribution process, in the best of the patients’ interests.

Payers, being part of the data-driven insurance industry, also have a strong interest to grow their influence on intermediaries to exploit the enormous amounts of data for risk and benefit evaluations. Simultaneously, payers might encounter opportunities and threats from emerging technologies such as blockchain. Although blockchain provides exclusive opportunities for fraud detection, smart contracts are able to challenge payers’ business models. In particular, there is an increasing connection among the actors. Although extensive regulations in the health care sector might impede fully automated processes based on smart contracts, payers are dared to ignore this technological trend.

Accordingly, elaborations should not be limited to single actors but should view the health care sector as a system of value cocreation. Policy makers are encouraged to pay special attention to possible interdependencies in the complex system of stakeholders when proposing policy decisions. For these decisions, they are going to see themselves negotiating with changing compositions of interest groups from the virtually integrated health care ecosystem. This increases the difficulty of introducing effective governance mechanisms and incentive structures to steer stakeholders’ initiatives. Policy makers should also pay special attention to intermediaries in the health care sector and avoid leaving these developments exposed to unrestricted market forces. As Bates et al [222] describe it, public policy is simultaneously the key enabler and the key barrier to unleashing the potential of health care data [222]. Regulators must determine the scope of information sharing and linking, considering the interest of various groups in the health care sector.

Policy makers are also advised to closely monitor the sector to detect de facto monopolies in certain key areas as consequences of critical mass effects [223]. Mandatory open standards and interfaces are able to limit the influence of single entities and allow for the emergence of new entrants. The digital transformation–induced disruptions require metrics that enable policy makers to assess the overall effectiveness of the health care sector. In this regard, future research should develop adequate key performance indicators. These key performance indicators must be adequately designed to detect possible inefficiencies and monopolistic activities in key areas, even in small segments of the sector. Special attention should be paid to the multidimensional nature of digital platforms, which poses new challenges with regard to the assessment of their impact on the market. In particular, policy makers in the European market are advised to monitor this segment, as dominating digital platforms are currently based in either the United States or China [224].

Limitations

The very nature of the integrative literature approach leads to possible limitations for this study. First, the search strategy has an impact on the results. In this study, the search results were classified as digital transformation related or Healthcare 4.0 related by the respective authors. It is possible that more abstract search terms (eg, referring to specific technologies, stakeholders, or actions of stakeholders) could yield different results. It is also possible that the term “digital health” would have yielded additional relevant results. However, owing to the broad scope of this term and the lack of association with the fundamentals of digital transformation in academic discussions, we decided to not consider this term in our search. As our approach yielded more relevant records than other works, we do not regard this search strategy as too narrow [157,225].

Given the novelty of this study, the sufficiency of the data involved in the research process was judged by 2 measures, the data basis of other studies and “theoretical saturation” [45]. This study included 140 literature results in the data evaluation, which is well above the number of publications included in other studies. For example, Kraus et al [31] evaluated the current state of research of digital transformation in health care and included 27 articles; the work of Kutnjak et al [225], analyzing the effect of digital transformation in health care in practice, included 7 case studies; Hermes et al [157] investigated the digital transformation of the health care industry based on 110 literature results; Marques and Ferreira [180] used 53 articles to analyze the emerging trend of digital medicine; and da Silveira et al [122] included 10 research articles to systematize and qualitatively describe the contributions of Industry 4.0 in the context of the health sector.

Looking at the theoretical saturation, the number of codes applied to text segments was >700. During the codification process, the most relevant code clusters emerged after approximately one-third of the literature was coded. The following research process further strengthened the results, rather than challenging it. This effect was also facilitated by the aim of this study to propose a conceptualization of the health care sector, which puts more emphasis on fundamental concepts rather than individual findings. On the basis of these 2 measures, we are confident that this study provides a sufficient coverage of the relevant literature.

Second, it is possible that the full ramifications of digital transformation can only be recognized retrospectively in the future. Future research might challenge the view of recent literature that concepts such as changing value creation and relationships are essential for digital transformation and propose different determining factors of the transformation we are currently experiencing.

Third, the grounded theory–based coding methodology itself, although followed rigorously, might rely on subjective perceptions of the researchers, thereby affecting the results.

The decisions made during the stakeholder identification also have considerable implications on the methodology and results of this study. Scholars providing in-depth analyses of the health care sector limit their perspective to comparable numbers of stakeholders [31,57,58]. Others, listing numerous stakeholders, do not provide such in-depth analyses [48-55]. In line with the aim of this study, we limited our perspective to the most essential stakeholders to be able to provide in-depth analyses of the complex interrelations occurring in the health care sector. However, an in-depth examination of the heterogeneous group intermediaries could lead to the identification of various other important stakeholders and further differentiate various means of value creation. In addition, future research should consider the integration of possible contributions of other stakeholder groups disregarded for the purposes of this study. Stakeholders in academia and research could advance the conceptual model and lead to an even more differentiated view on the health care sector under digital transformation. Furthermore, the lack of differentiation of the level of analysis within the individual stakeholder groups may limit the findings. For example, the providers group includes both individuals (eg, physicians) and organizations (eg, hospitals). The different characteristics of these entities may have implications for value creation or relationships that were not further differentiated in this study to address the need for ecosystem-level abstraction.

Conclusions

The proposed conceptual model highlights the interconnectedness of stakeholders’ digital transformation facilitates in the health care sector. We introduced the concept of the virtually integrated health care ecosystem and elaborated on the central role of intermediaries inside the system. Stakeholders are encouraged to recognize the common goal of actors in the sector and to embrace novel forms of cooperation. The proposed model can therefore serve practitioners as a useful tool to evaluate strategic responses. In addition, policy makers are advised to recognize the emerging reality inside the health care sector and let it reflect on their policies. Finally, it provides researchers with a basis to guide further scientific discussions on the transformation of the health care sector.

Multimedia Appendix 1

PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.

Multimedia Appendix 2

Database search terms.

Multimedia Appendix 3

Literature included in the integrative review.

Abbreviations

artificial intelligence

MECE

Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

The authors acknowledge financial support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg within the funding program Open Access Publication Funding.

Data Availability

The data sets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

None declared.

Nadeem

Abedin

Cerpa

Chew

Editorial: digital transformation & digital business strategy in electronic commerce - the role of organizational capabilities

J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 2018 05 13 2 I VIII

10.4067/s0718-18762018000200101

Vial

Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda

J Strategic Inform Syst 2019 06 28 2 118 44

10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

Gong

Ribiere

Developing a unified definition of digital transformation

Technovation 2021 04 102 102217

10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102217

Zhang

Mao

Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: a capability perspective

Info Syst J 2017 06 20 28 6 1129 57

10.1111/isj.12153

Hess

Matt

Benlian

Wiesböck

Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy

Strategic Information Management Theory and Practice 2020

Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire

Routledge

Chiuchisan

Costin

Geman

Adopting the internet of things technologies in health care systems

Proceedings of the International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE) 2014

International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE)

Oct 16-18, 2014

Iasi, Romania

10.1109/ICEPE.2014.6969965

Garg

Adhikari

McDonald

Rosas-Arellano

Devereaux

Beyene

Sam

Haynes

Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review

JAMA 2005 03 09 293 10 1223 38

10.1001/jama.293.10.1223

15755945

293/10/1223

Hillestad

Bigelow

Bower

Girosi

Meili

Scoville

Taylor

Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs

Health Aff (Millwood) 2005 24 5 1103 17

10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103

16162551

24/5/1103

Agarwal

Gao

DesRoches

Jha

Research commentary—the digital transformation of healthcare: current status and the road ahead

Inform Syst Res 2010 21 4 796 809

10.1287/isre.1100.0327

Herrmann

Boehme

Mondritzki

Ehlers

Kavadias

Truebel

Digital transformation and disruption of the health care sector: internet-based observational study

J Med Internet Res 2018 03 27 20 3 e104

10.2196/jmir.9498

29588274

v20i3e104

PMC5893888

Sharma

Singh Aujla

Bajaj

Evolution from ancient medication to human-centered Healthcare 4.0: a review on health care recommender systems

Int J Commun Syst 2019 09 09 e4058

10.1002/dac.4058

Kruse

Kristof

Jones

Mitchell

Martinez

Barriers to electronic health record adoption: a systematic literature review

J Med Syst 2016 12 40 12 252

10.1007/s10916-016-0628-9

27714560

10.1007/s10916-016-0628-9

PMC5054043

Romanow

Cho

Straub

Editor's comments: riding the wave: past trends and future directions for health IT research

MIS Q 2012 36 3 iii

10.2307/41703474

Kohli

Johnson

Digital transformation in latecomer industries: CIO and CEO Leadership Lessons from Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc

MIS Q Executive 2011 10 4 141 56

Nielsen

Sahay

A critical review of the role of technology and context in digital health research

Digit Health 2022 8 20552076221109554

10.1177/20552076221109554

35769359

10.1177_20552076221109554

PMC9234838

Ivancic

Glavan

Vuksic

A literature review of digital transformation in healthcare

Proceedings of the 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO) 2020

43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO)

Sep 28 - Oct 02, 2020

Opatija, Croatia

10.23919/mipro48935.2020.9245259

Bumann

Peter

Action fields of digital transformation - a review and comparative analysis of digital transformation maturity models and frame-works

Digitalisierung und andere Innovationsformen im Management 2019

Basel, Switzerland

Edition Gesowip

Morakanyane

Grace

O'Reilly

Conceptualizing digital transformation in business organizations: a systematic review of literature

Proceedings of the 30th Bled eConference Digital Transformation – From Connecting Things to Transforming Our Lives 2017

30th Bled eConference Digital Transformation – From Connecting Things to Transforming Our Lives

Jun 18-21, 201

Bled, Slovenia

10.18690/978-961-286-043-1.30

Kostoff

Boylan

Simons

Disruptive technology roadmaps

Technol Forecast Soc Change 2004 1 71 1-2 141 59

10.1016/s0040-1625(03)00048-9

Gopal

Suter-Crazzolara

Toldo

Eberhardt

Digital transformation in healthcare - architectures of present and future information technologies

Clin Chem Lab Med 2019 02 25 57 3 328 35

10.1515/cclm-2018-0658

30530878

cclm-2018-0658

Paul

Riffat

Yasir

Mahim

Sharnali

Naheen

Rahman

Kulkarni

Industry 4.0 applications for medical/healthcare services

J Sens Actuator Netw 2021 06 30 10 3 43

10.3390/jsan10030043

Thuemmler

Bai

Health 4.0: application of industry 4.0 design principles in future asthma management

Health 4.0: How Virtualization and Big Data are Revolutionizing Healthcare 2017

Cham

Springer

Ahmad

Khujamatov

Akhmedov

Bajuri

Ahmad

Ahmadian

Emerging trends and evolutions for smart city healthcare systems

Sustainable Cities Soc 2022 05 80 103695

10.1016/j.scs.2022.103695

Riasanow

Soto Setzke

Hoberg

Krcmar

Clarifying the notion of digital transformation in IS literature: a comparison of organizational change philosophies

SSRN J 2018

10.2139/ssrn.3072318

Bley

Leyh

Schäffer

igitization of German Enterprises in the production sector – do they know how " digitized " they are?

Proceedings of the 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems - AMCIS 2016 2016

22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems - AMCIS 2016

Aug 11-14, 2016

San Diego, USA

Govindarajan

Immelt

The only way manufacturers can survive

MIT Sloan Management Review 2019

2022-02-21

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-only-way-manufacturers-can-survive/

Kapoor

Ecosystems: broadening the locus of value creation

J Org Design 2018 10 29 7 12

10.1186/s41469-018-0035-4

Gouillart

The race to implement co-creation of value with stakeholders: five approaches to competitive advantage

Strategy Leadership 2014 42 1 2 8

10.1108/SL-09-2013-0071

Glaser

Shaw

Digital transformation success: what can health care providers learn from other industries?

NEJM Catalyst 2022 3 2

10.1056/CAT.21.0434

Bharadwaj

El Sawy

Pavlou

Venkatraman

Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights

MIS Q 2013 2 2 37 2 471 82

10.25300/misq/2013/37:2.3

Kraus

Schiavone

Pluzhnikova

Invernizzi

Digital transformation in healthcare: analyzing the current state-of-research

J Business Res 2021 02 123 557 67

10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.030

Aceto

Persico

Pescapé

The role of Information and Communication Technologies in healthcare: taxonomies, perspectives, and challenges

J Netw Comput Applications 2018 04 107 125 54

10.1016/j.jnca.2018.02.008

Tortorella

Fogliatto

Mac Cawley Vergara

Vassolo

Sawhney

Healthcare 4.0: trends, challenges and research directions

Production Planning Control 2019 12 17 31 15 1245 60

10.1080/09537287.2019.1702226

Cavusoglu

Demirbag-Kaplan

Health commodified, health communified: navigating digital consumptionscapes of well-being

EJM 2017 11 14 51 11/12 2054 79

10.1108/EJM-01-2017-0015

Dahl

Milne

Peltier

Digital health information seeking in an omni-channel environment: a shared decision-making and service-dominant logic perspective

J Business Res 2021 03 125 840 50

10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.025

Whittemore

Knafl

The integrative review: updated methodology

J Adv Nurs 2005 12 52 5 546 53

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

16268861

JAN3621

Tamene

Theorizing conceptual framework

J Educ Res 2016 4 2 50 6

10.4135/9781506326139.n134

Jabareen

Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure

Int J Qual Methods 2009 12 01 8 4 49 62

10.1177/160940690900800406

Miles

Huberman

Qualitative Data Analysis An Expanded Sourcebook 1994

Thousand Oaks, California, United states

SAGE Publications

Maxwell

Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach 2013

Thousand Oaks, California, United states

SAGE Publications

Levering

Concept analysis as empirical method

Int J Qual Methods 2016 11 30 1 1 35 48

10.1177/160940690200100104

Leshem

Trafford

Overlooking the conceptual framework

Innov Educ Teaching Int 2007 02 44 1 93 105

10.1080/14703290601081407

Munn

Peters

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

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

BMC Med Res Methodol 2018 11 19 18 1 143

10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

30453902

10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

PMC6245623

World Health Organization

Everybody's Business -- Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes : WHO's Framework for Action 2007

Geneva

World Health Organization

Strauss

Corbin

Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory · Volume 14 1990

Thousand Oaks, California, United states

SAGE Publications

Mey

Mruck

Grounded Theory Methodologie - Bemerkungen zu einem Prominenten Forschungsstil

Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 2007 1 32 11 39

Dillon

Grounded theory and qualitative research

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics 2012

Hoboken, New Jersey

Wiley

Auvinen

A-M

Understanding the stakeholders as a success factor for effective occupational health care

Occupational Health 2017

Vienna, Austria

InTech

Bauchner

Simpson

Specific issues related to developing, disseminating, and implementing pediatric practice guidelines for physicians, patients, families, and other stakeholders

Health Serv Res 1998 10 33 4 Pt 2 1161 77

9776953

PMC1070308

Bessant

Künne

Möslein

Opening Up Healthcare Innovation: Innovation Solutions for a 21st Century Healthcare System 2012

London

Advanced Institute for Management Research

Delnoij

Rademakers

Groenewegen

The Dutch consumer quality index: an example of stakeholder involvement in indicator development

BMC Health Serv Res 2010 04 06 10 88

10.1186/1472-6963-10-88

20370925

1472-6963-10-88

PMC2864255

Ecker

Preuß

Tunder

Handbuch Market-Access - Marktzulassung ohne Nebenwirkungen 2011

Düsseldorf

Fachverlag der Verlagsgruppe Handelsblatt

Hilbert

Fretschner

Dülberg

Rahmenbedingungen und Herausforderungen der Gesundheitswirtschaft 2002

Gelsenkirchen

Eigendruck

Virtual, Augmented Reality and Serious Games for Healthcare 1 2014

Berlin, Heidelberg

Springer

Organisation des Gesundheitssystems

Gesundheitspolitik 2017

Berlin

Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft

Pang

Yang

Khedri

Zhang

Introduction to the special section: convergence of automation technology, biomedical engineering, and health informatics toward the healthcare 4.0

IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2018 11 249 59

10.1109/rbme.2018.2848518

Penter

Augurzky

Gesundheitssysteme

Gesundheitswesen für Praktiker 2014

Wiesbaden

Springer Gabler

Santerre

Neun

Health Economics: Theories, Insights, and Industry Studies 2000

Fort Worth

Dryden

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

O'Brien

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

Garritty

Lewin

Godfrey

Macdonald

Langlois

Soares-Weiser

Moriarty

Clifford

Tunçalp

Straus

PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation

Ann Intern Med 2018 10 02 169 7 467 73

10.7326/M18-0850

30178033

2700389

Gusenbauer

Haddaway

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Res Synth Methods 2020 03 11 2 181 217

10.1002/jrsm.1378

31614060

PMC7079055

Khan

Arjmandi

Yuvaraj

Most cited works on cloud computing: the ‘citation classics’ as viewed through Dimensions.ai

Sci Technol Libraries 2021 07 26 41 1 42 55

10.1080/0194262x.2021.1951424

Reis

Amorim

Melão

Matos

Digital transformation: a literature review and guidelines for future research

Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies 2018

Cham

Springer

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

Boutron

Hoffmann

Mulrow

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

Akl

Brennan

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

Loder

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

McGuinness

Stewart

Thomas

Tricco

Welch

Whiting

Moher

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

PLoS Med 2021 03 18 3 e1003583

10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583

33780438

PMEDICINE-D-21-01172

PMC8007028

Paré

Tate

Johnstone

Kitsiou

Contextualizing the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews

Eur J Inform Syst 2017 12 19 25 6 493 508

10.1057/s41303-016-0020-3

Dixon-Woods

Bonas

Booth

Jones

Miller

Sutton

Shaw

Smith

Young

How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective

Qual Res 2016 08 15 6 1 27 44

10.1177/1468794106058867

Edwards

Elwyn

Hood

Rollnick

Judging the 'weight of evidence' in systematic reviews: introducing rigour into the qualitative overview stage by assessing Signal and Noise

J Eval Clin Pract 2000 05 6 2 177 84

10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00212.x

10970011

Torraco

Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: a comparative analysis

Advances Develop Human Resources 2016 07 21 4 3 355 76

10.1177/1523422302043008

Marjaei

Yazdi

Chandrashekara

MAXQDA and its application to LIS research

Library Philosophy Pract 2019

Gleiss

Kohlhagen

Pousttchi

An apple a day - how the platform economy impacts value creation in the healthcare market

Electron Mark 2021 04 14 31 4 849 76

10.1007/s12525-021-00467-2

35599688

467

PMC8043778

Conlon

Timonen

Elliott-O'Dare

O'Keeffe

Foley

Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies

Qual Health Res 2020 05 30 6 947 59

10.1177/1049732319899139

31959073

Foley

Timonen

Conlon

O’Dare

Interviewing as a vehicle for theoretical sampling in grounded theory

Int J Qual Method 2021 04 13 20 160940692098095

10.1177/1609406920980957

Gioia

Corley

Hamilton

Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research

Organizational Res Methods 2012 07 24 16 1 15 31

10.1177/1094428112452151

Aarestrup

Albeyatti

Armitage

Auffray

Augello

Balling

Benhabiles

Bertolini

Bjaalie

Black

Blomberg

Bogaert

Bubak

Claerhout

Clarke

De Meulder

D'Errico

Di Meglio

Forgo

Gans-Combe

Gray

Gut

Gyllenberg

Hemmrich-Stanisak

Hjorth

Ioannidis

Jarmalaite

Kel

Kherif

Korbel

Larue

Laszlo

Maas

Magalhaes

Manneh-Vangramberen

Morley-Fletcher

Ohmann

Oksvold

Oxtoby

Perseil

Pezoulas

Riess

Riper

Roca

Rosenstiel

Sabatier

Sanz

Tayeb

Thomassen

Van Bussel

Van den Bulcke

Van Oyen

Towards a European health research and innovation cloud (HRIC)

Genome Med 2020 02 19 12 1 18

10.1186/s13073-020-0713-z

32075696

10.1186/s13073-020-0713-z

PMC7029532

Abrahams

Matusheski

Personalised nutrition technologies: a new paradigm for dietetic practice and training in a digital transformation era

J Hum Nutr Diet 2020 06 33 3 295 8

10.1111/jhn.12746

32173947

PMC7317901

Aceto

Persico

Pescapé

Industry 4.0 and health: internet of things, big data, and cloud computing for healthcare 4.0

J Industrial Inform Integration 2020 06 18 100129

10.1016/j.jii.2020.100129

Abugabah

Nizamuddin

Alzubi

Decentralized telemedicine framework for a smart healthcare ecosystem

IEEE Access 2020 8 166575 88

10.1109/access.2020.3021823

Agrawal

Bridging digital health divides

Science 2020 08 28 369 6507 1050 2

10.1126/science.abc9295

32855322

369/6507/1050

Ahmadi-Assalemi

Al-Khateeb

Maple

Epiphaniou

Alhaboby

Alkaabi

Alhaboby

Digital twins for precision healthcare

Cyber Defence in the Age of AI, Smart Societies and Augmented Humanity 2020

Cham

Springer

Ahmad

Mehmood

Khan

Whangbo

Architecting intelligent smart serious games for healthcare applications: a technical perspective

Sensors (Basel) 2022 01 21 22 3 810

10.3390/s22030810

35161556

s22030810

PMC8840149

Akatkin

Karpov

Konyavskiy

Yasinovskaya

Digital economy: conceptual architecture of a digital economic sector ecosystem

Bus Informatics 2017 12 31 2017 4 17 28

Al-Aswad

El-Medany

Balakrishna

Ababneh

Curran

BZKP: blockchain-based zero-knowledge proof model for enhancing healthcare security in Bahrain IoT smart cities and COVID-19 risk mitigation

Arab J Basic Applied Sci 2021 05 19 28 1 154 71

10.1080/25765299.2020.1870812

Alauddin

Baharuddin

Mohd Ghazali

The modern and digital transformation of oral health care: a mini review

Healthcare (Basel) 2021 01 25 9 2 118

10.3390/healthcare9020118

33503807

healthcare9020118

PMC7912705

Alcan

Internet of Things (IoT) in Healthcare Systems

Internet of Things (IoT) Applications for Enterprise Productivity 2020

Pennsylvania, United States

IGI Global

Alghamdi

Monitoring mental health using smart devices with text analytical tool

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT) 2019

6th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT)

Apr 23-26, 2019

Paris, France

10.1109/codit.2019.8820381

Al-Jaroodi

Mohamed

Abukhousa

Health 4.0: on the way to realizing the healthcare of the future

IEEE Access 2020 8 211189 210

10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3038858

34976565

PMC8675545

Amruthamma

Ashwatha Narayana

Indian health care and insurance industry on the eco-system of a digital transformation

AMBER ABBS Manage Business Entrepreneurship Rev 2017 09 01 8 2 97 108

10.23874/amber/2017/v8/i2/166124

Anwar

Joshi

Tan

Anytime, anywhere access to secure, privacy-aware healthcare services: issues, approaches and challenges

Health Policy Technol 2015 12 4 4 299 311

10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.08.007

Arabi

Azoulay

Al-Dorzi

Phua

Salluh

Binnie

Hodgson

Angus

Cecconi

Fowler

Gomersall

Horby

Juffermans

Kesecioglu

Kleinpell

Machado

Martin

Meyfroidt

Rhodes

Rowan

Timsit

Vincent

Citerio

How the COVID-19 pandemic will change the future of critical care

Intensive Care Med 2021 03 47 3 282 91

10.1007/s00134-021-06352-y

33616696

10.1007/s00134-021-06352-y

PMC7898492

Arpaia

De Benedetto

Duraccio

Design, implementation, and metrological characterization of a wearable, integrated AR-BCI hands-free system for health 4.0 monitoring

Measurement 2021 06 177 109280

10.1016/j.measurement.2021.109280

Asthana

Jones

Sheaff

Why does the NHS struggle to adopt eHealth innovations? A review of macro, meso and micro factors

BMC Health Serv Res 2019 12 21 19 1 984

10.1186/s12913-019-4790-x

31864370

10.1186/s12913-019-4790-x

PMC6925468

Atreja

Francis

Kurra

Kabra

Digital medicine and evolution of remote patient monitoring in cardiac electrophysiology: a state-of-the-art perspective

Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2019 12 13 21 12 92

10.1007/s11936-019-0787-3

31832887

10.1007/s11936-019-0787-3

Auerbach

Khanna

Adler-Milstein

Letting a good crisis go to waste

J Gen Intern Med 2020 04 35 4 1289 91

10.1007/s11606-019-05552-z

31745851

10.1007/s11606-019-05552-z

PMC7174516

Aujla

Jindal

Chaudhary

Kumar

Vashist

Sharma

Obaidat

DLRS: deep learning-based recommender system for smart healthcare ecosystem

Proceedings of the ICC 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2019

ICC 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC)

May 20-24, 2019

Shanghai, China

10.1109/icc.2019.8761416

Awad

Trenfield

Pollard

Ong

Elbadawi

McCoubrey

Goyanes

Gaisford

Basit

Connected healthcare: improving patient care using digital health technologies

Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2021 11 178 113958

10.1016/j.addr.2021.113958

34478781

S0169-409X(21)00351-3

Baby

Chandran

Digital health infrastructure

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Trends in Machine Learning, IoT, Smart Cities and Applications 2022

Singapore

Springer

Backholer

Browne

Wright

Grenfell

Peeters

Digital determinants of health: the digital transformation

Med J Aust 2021 05 02 214 8 S32 5

10.5694/mja2.51020

33934362

Bagaria

Laamarti

Badawi

Albraikan

Martinez

El Saddik

Health 4.0: digital twins for health and well-being

Connected Health in Smart Cities 2020

Cham

Springer

Barnett

Winning

Canaris

Cleary

Staib

Sullivan

Digital transformation of hospital quality and safety: real-time data for real-time action

Aust Health Rev 2019 01 43 6 656 61

10.1071/AH18125

30384880

AH18125

Basatneh

Najafi

Armstrong

Health sensors, smart home devices, and the internet of medical things: an opportunity for dramatic improvement in care for the lower extremity complications of diabetes

J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018 05 12 3 577 86

10.1177/1932296818768618

29635931

PMC6154231

100

Baudin

Gustafsson

Frennert

Views of Swedish elder care personnel on ongoing digital transformation: cross-sectional study

J Med Internet Res 2020 06 16 22 6 e15450

10.2196/15450

32543444

v22i6e15450

PMC7327600

101

Bause

Khayamian Esfahani

Forbes

Schaefer

Design for health 4.0: exploration of a new area

Proc Int Conf Eng Des 2019 07 26 1 1 887 96

10.1017/dsi.2019.93

102

Belliger

Krieger

The digital transformation of healthcare

Knowledge Management in Digital Change 2018

Cham

Springer

103

Benis

Tamburis

Chronaki

Moen

One digital health: a unified framework for future health ecosystems

J Med Internet Res 2021 02 05 23 2 e22189

10.2196/22189

33492240

v23i2e22189

PMC7886486

104

Benjamin

Potts

Digital transformation in government: lessons for digital health?

Digit Health 2018 4 2055207618759168

10.1177/2055207618759168

29942624

10.1177_2055207618759168

PMC6005404

105

Bhardwaj

Khanna

Kumar

Mobile FOG architecture assisted continuous acquisition of fetal ECG data for efficient prediction

Fog Data Analytics for IoT Applications 2020

Singapore

Springer

106

Bhattacharya

Tanwar

Bodkhe

Tyagi

Kumar

BinDaaS: blockchain-based deep-learning as-a-service in healthcare 4.0 applications

IEEE Trans Netw Sci Eng 2021 4 1 8 2 1242 55

10.1109/tnse.2019.2961932

107

Bhatti

Huang

Zhang

Mehmood

Han

Recommendation system using feature extraction and pattern recognition in clinical care systems

Enterprise Inform Syst 2018 12 26 13 3 329 51

10.1080/17517575.2018.1557256

108

Biancone

Secinaro

Marseglia

Calandra

E-health for the future. Managerial perspectives using a multiple case study approach

Technovation 2023 02 120 102406

10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102406

109

Bonacina

Koch

Meneses

Chronaki

Can the European EHR exchange format support shared decision making and citizen-driven health science?

Stud Health Technol Inform 2021 05 27 281 1056 60

10.3233/SHTI210346

34042840

SHTI210346

110

Busse

Kernebeck

Nef

Rebacz

Kickbusch

Ehlers

Views on using social robots in professional caregiving: content analysis of a scenario method workshop

J Med Internet Res 2021 11 10 23 11 e20046

10.2196/20046

34757318

v23i11e20046

PMC8663608

111

Bongaerts

Henn

Khare

The pac-man principle in the healthcare market

Phantom Ex Machina 2017

Cham

Springer

112

Cáceres

Rosário

Amaya

Towards health 4.0: e-hospital proposal based industry 4.0 and artificial intelligence concept

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 2019

Cham

Springer

113

Caumanns

[For discussion: the state of digitization of the German healthcare system]

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2019 06 143 22 9

10.1016/j.zefq.2019.04.002

31204267

S1865-9217(19)30044-3

114

Cavallone

Palumbo

Debunking the myth of industry 4.0 in health care: insights from a systematic literature review

TQM J 2020 03 02 32 4 849 68

10.1108/tqm-10-2019-0245

115

Cerchione

Centobelli

Riccio

Abbate

Oropallo

Blockchain’s coming to hospital to digitalize healthcare services: designing a distributed electronic health record ecosystem

Technovation 2023 02 120 102480

10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102480

116

Choi

Gitelman

Asch

Subscribing to your patients — reimagining the future of electronic health records

N Engl J Med 2018 05 24 378 21 1960 2

10.1056/nejmp1800874

117

Chute

French

Introducing care 4.0: an integrated care paradigm built on industry 4.0 capabilities

Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019 06 25 16 12 2247

10.3390/ijerph16122247

31242687

ijerph16122247

PMC6616447

118

Colombo

Oderkirk

Slawomirski

Health information systems, electronic medical records, and big data in global healthcare

Handbook of Global Health 2021

Cham

Springer

119

Corneliussen

Developing a regional solution to digital transformation of health care services: collaboration, leadership, and technological expertise

Proceedings of the International Conference e-Health 2020 2020

Rome, Italy

IADIS Press

120

Crisan

Mihaila

Health-care information systems adoption – a review of management practices

Vilakshan XIMB J Manag 2021 07 09 20 1 130 9

10.1108/xjm-04-2021-0121

121

Cresswell

Sheikh

Franklin

Krasuska

The Nguyen

Hinder

Lane

Mozaffar

Mason

Eason

Potts

Williams

Interorganizational knowledge sharing to establish digital health learning ecosystems: qualitative evaluation of a national digital health transformation program in England

J Med Internet Res 2021 08 19 23 8 e23372

10.2196/23372

34420927

v23i8e23372

PMC8414305

122

da Silveira

Neto

Machado

da Silva

Amaral

Analysis of industry 4.0 technologies applied to the health sector: systematic literature review

Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 202 2019

Cham

Springer

123

Surya Darmawan

Laksono

The new leadership paradigm in digital health and its relations to hospital services

JIKM 2021 06 28 12 2 89 103

10.26553/jikm.2021.12.2.89-103

124

Dassel

Klein

(My) data for (my) health – privacy calculi of terminally-ill patients with rare diseases

Proceedings of the 33rd Bled eConference – Enabling Technology for a Sustainable Society 2020

33rd Bled eConference – Enabling Technology for a Sustainable Society

Jun 28 – 29, 2020

Online

10.18690/978-961-286-362-3.2

125

Datta

Retail medicine in an era of IoT and medical errors in the age of ubiquitous connectivity

J Innov Manage 2016 12 19 4 3 3 6

10.24840/2183-0606_004.003_0002

126

Delgado

Without IPv6, there is no digital transformation for healthcare

Technol Health Care 2022 30 2 505 8

10.3233/THC-213571

34957972

THC213571

127

Diamantopoulos

Karamitros

Romano

Coppolino

Koutkias

Votis

Stan

Campegiani

Martinez

Nalin

Baroni

Clemente

Faiella

Mesaritakis

Grivas

Rasmussen

Petersen

Cano

Puigdomenech

Gelenbe

Dumortier

Voss-KnudeVoronkov

Secure cross-border exchange of health related data: the KONFIDO approach

Proceedings of the 15th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC) 2019

15th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC)

Sep 17-20, 2019

Naples, Italy

10.1109/edcc.2019.00024

128

Dimitrov

Medical internet of things and big data in healthcare

Healthc Inform Res 2016 07 22 3 156 63

10.4258/hir.2016.22.3.156

27525156

PMC4981575

129

Ding

Fatehi

Maiorana

Bashi

Edwards

Digital health for COPD care: the current state of play

J Thorac Dis 2019 10 11 Suppl 17 S2210 20

10.21037/jtd.2019.10.17

31737348

jtd-11-S17-S2210

PMC6831928

130

do Nascimento

Iorio

Thomé

Medeiros

Mendonça

Campos

David

Ströele

Dantas

Covid-19: a digital transformation approach to a public primary healthcare environment

Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC) 2020

IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)

Jul 7-10, 2020

Rennes, France

10.1109/iscc50000.2020.9219643

131

Dossou

Foreste

Misumi

Intelligent support system for healthcare logistics 4.0 optimization in the Covid pandemic context

J Softw Eng Appl 2021 14 06 233 56

10.4236/jsea.2021.146014

132

Edberg

Wendel

Healthcare transformation: the electronic health record

Behavioral Medicine and Integrated Care 2018

Cham

Springer

133

Eden

Burton-Jones

Grant

Collins

Staib

Sullivan

Digitising an Australian university hospital: qualitative analysis of staff-reported impacts

Aust Health Rev 2020 09 44 5 677 89

10.1071/AH18218

31315788

AH18218

134

Efendy

Nyorong

Amirah

Sari

National health insurance (JKN) mobile application use towards satisfaction of participants of the health social security implementing agency (BPJS) in Madani hospital in Medan city

J Med Health Stud 2022 01 27 3 1 26 34

10.32996/jmhs.2022.3.1.4

135

Ekeland

Linstad

Elaborating models of eHealth governance: qualitative systematic review

J Med Internet Res 2020 10 28 22 10 e17214

10.2196/17214

33112247

v22i10e17214

PMC7657726

136

El Majdoubi

El Bakkali

Sadki

SmartMedChain: a blockchain-based privacy-preserving smart healthcare framework

J Healthc Eng 2021 2021 4145512

10.1155/2021/4145512

34777733

PMC8589497

137

Eriksen

Bertelsen

Bygholm

The digital transformation of patient-reported outcomes' (PROs) functionality within healthcare

Stud Health Technol Inform 2020 06 16 270 1051 5

10.3233/SHTI200322

32570542

SHTI200322

138

KHELASSI

Estrela

Monteiro

França

Iano

Razmjooy

Health 4.0: applications, management, technologies and review

Mèd Technol J 2019 01 09 2 4 262 76

10.26415/2572-004x-vol2iss4p262-276

139

Evangelatos

Upadya

Venne

Satyamoorthy

Brand

Ramashesha

Brand

Digital transformation and governance innovation for public biobanks and free/libre open source software using a blockchain technology

OMICS 2020 05 24 5 278 85

10.1089/omi.2019.0178

32228380

140

Faddis

The digital transformation of healthcare technology management

Biomed Instrum Technol 2018 01 52 s2 34 8

10.2345/0899-8205-52.s2.34

29775387

141

Fischer

Service innovation in health care: the role of health platforms as innovators

Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Applications II 2020

Cham

Springer

142

Flórez

Rosário

Hurtado

Application of automation and manufacture techniques oriented to a service-based business using the internet of things (IoT) and industry 4.0 concepts. Case study: smart hospital

Gest Prod 2020 27 3

10.1590/0104-530x5416-20

143

Frączkiewicz-Wronka

Digitalization of healthcare sector as a tool for implementation of competition policy

EEM 2021 12 8 2 25 34

10.23939/eem2021.02.025

144

Francis Gomes

Pikkarainen

Ahokangas

Niemelä

Towards business ecosystems for connected health

FinJeHeW 2017 05 21 9 2-3 96

10.23996/fjhw.61004

145

Frennert

Gender blindness: on health and welfare technology, AI and gender equality in community care

Nurs Inq 2021 12 28 4 e12419

10.1111/nin.12419

33979011

146

Gadupudi

Nisha

Yarramasu

Teledentistry: a futuristic realm of dental care

Int J Oral Health Sci 2017 7 2 63

10.4103/ijohs.ijohs_22_17

147

Galetsi

Katsaliaki

Kumar

Assessing technology innovation of mobile health apps for medical care providers

IEEE Trans Eng Manage 2022 1 18

10.1109/tem.2022.3142619

148

Gasova

Stofkova

E-government as a quality improvement tool for citizens’ services

Procedia Eng 2017 192 225 30

10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.039

149

Gavrilov

Simov

Trajkovik

Analysis of digitalization in healthcare: case study

ICT Innovations 2020 2020

Cham

Springer

150

Gibson

The eRedbook: enabling digital transformation in health care

J Health Visit 2016 01 02 4 1 27 30

10.12968/johv.2016.4.1.27

151

Gochhait

Singh

Bende

Thapliyal

Vemulapalli

Shukla

Ghosh

Chinta

Implementation of EHR using digital transformation: a study on telemedicine

Proceedings of the International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET) 2020

International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET)

Jun 05-07, 2020

Belgaum, India

10.1109/incet49848.2020.9154146

152

Gökalp

Kayabay

Gökalp

Leveraging digital transformation technologies to tackle COVID-19: proposing a privacy-first holistic framework

Emerging Technologies During the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic 2021

Cham

Springer

153

Grigoriadis

Bakirtzis

Politis

Danas

Thuemmler

Health 4.0: the case of multiple sclerosis

Proceedings of the IEEE 18th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom) 2016

IEEE 18th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom)

Sep 14-16, 2016

Munich, Germany

10.1109/healthcom.2016.7749437

154

Gupta

Shukla

Mehta

Bhattacharya

Tanwar

Tyagi

Kumar

VAHAK: a blockchain-based outdoor delivery scheme using UAV for healthcare 4.0 services

Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2020 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) 2020

IEEE INFOCOM 2020 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS)

Jul 06-09, 2020

Toronto, ON, Canada

10.1109/infocomwkshps50562.2020.9162738

155

Hahn

Schreiber

E-health

Digital Transformation 2019

Berlin, Heidelberg

Springer Vieweg

156

Hasselgren

Hanssen Rensaa

Kralevska

Gligoroski

Faxvaag

Blockchain for increased trust in virtual health care: proof-of-concept study

J Med Internet Res 2021 07 30 23 7 e28496

10.2196/28496

34328437

v23i7e28496

PMC8367164

157

Hermes

Riasanow

Clemons

Böhm

Krcmar

The digital transformation of the healthcare industry: exploring the rise of emerging platform ecosystems and their influence on the role of patients

Bus Res 2020 09 11 13 3 1033 69

10.1007/s40685-020-00125-x

158

Herrero-Martinez

Hussain

Roux

MacDonald

Mayer

Palacios

Kühler

Dynamic regulatory assessment: evolving the European regulatory framework for the benefit of patients and public health-an EFPIA view

Clin Ther 2022 01 44 1 132 8

10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.11.001

34848082

S0149-2918(21)00456-2

PMC9754899

159

Ianculescu

Alexandru

Microservices - a catalyzer for better managing healthcare data empowerment

Stud Inform Control 2020 07 02 29 2 231 42

10.24846/v29i2y202008

160

Ilin

Iliashenko

Dubgorn

Esser

Critical factors and challenges of healthcare digital transformation

Digital Transformation and the World Economy 2022

Cham

Springer

161

Iyamu

Gómez-Ramírez

Ablona

Chang

Mckee

Gilbert

Defining digital public health and the role of digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation: scoping review

JMIR Public Health Surveill 2021 11 26 7 11 e30399

10.2196/30399

34842555

v7i11e30399

PMC8665390

162

Jahankhani

Kendzierskyj

Digital transformation of healthcare

Blockchain and Clinical Trial 2019

Cham

Springer

163

Kim

Roh

Kim

Park

Choi

Current state and strategy for establishing a digitally innovative hospital: memorial review article for opening of Yongin severance hospital

Yonsei Med J 2020 08 61 8 647 51

10.3349/ymj.2020.61.8.647

32734727

61.647

PMC7393291

164

Kim

Logeswaran

Kang

Stanojcic

Wickham

Thomas

Digital transformation in ophthalmic clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic

Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2021 10 4 381 7

10.1097/APO.0000000000000407

34415246

01599573-202108000-00009

165

Kishor

Chakraborty

Artificial intelligence and internet of things based healthcare 4.0 monitoring system

Wireless Pers Commun 2021 07 03 127 2 1615 31

10.1007/s11277-021-08708-5

166

Klinker

Wiesche

Krcmar

Digital transformation in health care: augmented reality for hands-free service innovation

Inf Syst Front 2019 06 25 22 6 1419 31

10.1007/s10796-019-09937-7

167

Kotz

Gunter

Kumar

Weiner

Privacy and security in mobile health: a research agenda

Computer (Long Beach Calif) 2016 06 49 6 22 30

10.1109/MC.2016.185

28344359

PMC5362254

168

Kouroubali

Katehakis

The new European interoperability framework as a facilitator of digital transformation for citizen empowerment

J Biomed Inform 2019 06 94 103166

10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103166

30978512

S1532-0464(19)30084-X

169

Krasuska

Williams

Sheikh

Franklin

Hinder

TheNguyen

Lane

Mozaffar

Mason

Eason

Potts

Cresswell

Driving digital health transformation in hospitals: a formative qualitative evaluation of the English Global Digital Exemplar programme

BMJ Health Care Inform 2021 12 28 1 e100429

10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100429

34921060

bmjhci-2021-100429

PMC8685936

170

Kumar

Krishnamurthi

Nayyar

Sharma

Grover

Hossain

A novel smart healthcare design, simulation, and implementation using healthcare 4.0 processes

IEEE Access 2020 8 118433 71

10.1109/access.2020.3004790

171

Lehne

Sass

Essenwanger

Schepers

Thun

Why digital medicine depends on interoperability

NPJ Digit Med 2019 2 79

10.1038/s41746-019-0158-1

31453374

158

PMC6702215

172

Leone

Schiavone

Appio

Chiao

How does artificial intelligence enable and enhance value co-creation in industrial markets? An exploratory case study in the healthcare ecosystem

J Business Res 2021 05 129 849 59

10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.008

173

Lerzynski

Opening the door for digital transformation in hospitals: management’s point of view

Digitalization in Healthcare 2021

Cham

Springer

174

Zhu

Shen

Gao

Tao

Liu

Blockchain-based data preservation system for medical data

J Med Syst 2018 06 28 42 8 141

10.1007/s10916-018-0997-3

29956058

10.1007/s10916-018-0997-3

175

Carayon

Health care 4.0: a vision for smart and connected health care

IISE Trans Healthc Syst Eng 2021 11 3 171 80

10.1080/24725579.2021.1884627

34497970

PMC8423174

176

Liu

Ting

Jeon

Chan

Kim

Sim

Thomas

Lin

Chen

Sakomoto

Loewenstein

Lam

Pasquale

Wong

Lam

Ting

Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: a global perspective

Prog Retin Eye Res 2021 05 82 100900

10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100900

32898686

S1350-9462(20)30072-0

PMC7474840

177

Loch

Witzsch

Reis

[Digital transformation in urology-opportunity, risk or necessity?]

Urologe A 2021 09 60 9 1125 40

10.1007/s00120-021-01610-9

34351439

10.1007/s00120-021-01610-9

178

Lux

Breil

Dörries

Gensorowsky

Greiner

Pfeiffer

Rebitschek

Gigerenzer

Wagner

Digitalisierung im Gesundheitswesen — zwischen Datenschutz und moderner Medizinversorgung

Wirtschaftsdienst 2017 10 15 97 10 687 703

10.1007/s10273-017-2200-8

179

Manogaran

Thota

Lopez

Sundarasekar

Big data security intelligence for healthcare industry 4.0

Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0 2017

Cham

Springer

180

Marques

Ferreira

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

Health Technol 2019 12 13 10 3 575 86

10.1007/s12553-019-00402-8

181

McEachern

Cholewa

Digital health services and digital identity in alberta

Stud Health Technol Inform 2017 234 222 7

28186045

182

Meskó

Rx disruption: technology trends in medicine and health care

Futurist 2014 48 3 31 8

183

Meskó

Drobni

Bényei

Éva

Gergely

Győrffy

Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional healthcare

Mhealth 2017 3 38

10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.07

29184890

mh-03-2017.08.07

PMC5682364

184

Mukherjee

Singh

The opportunities of blockchain in health 4.0

Blockchain Technology for Industry 4.0, Secure, Decentralized, Distributed and Trusted Industry Environment 2020

Singapore

Springer

185

Mun

Wong

Bayarsaikhan

Artificial intelligence for the future radiology diagnostic service

Front Mol Biosci 2020 7 614258

10.3389/fmolb.2020.614258

33585563

614258

PMC7875875

186

Müschenich

Wamprecht

[Health 4.0 - how are we doing tomorrow?]

Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2018 03 61 3 334 9

10.1007/s00103-018-2702-6

29411045

10.1007/s00103-018-2702-6

187

Narikimilli

Kumar

Antu

Xie

Blockchain applications in healthcare – a review and future perspective

Blockchain ICBC 2020 2020

Cham

Springer

188

Natsiavas

Kakalou

Votis

Tzovaras

Koutkias

Citizen perspectives on cross-border ehealth data exchange: a european survey

Stud Health Technol Inform 2019 08 21 264 719 23

10.3233/SHTI190317

31438018

SHTI190317

189

Neumann

Kolak

Auschra

Strategies to digitalize inert health practices: the gamification of glucose monitoring

it Inform Technol 2019 61 5-6 231 41

10.1515/itit-2019-0023

190

Nokkala

Dahlberg

Empowering citizens through data interoperability - data federation applied to consumer-centric healthcare

Finnish J EHealth EWelfare 2019 11 02 11 4 246 57

10.23996/fjhw.82599

191

Omarov

Baiganova

Sapakova

Yessengaliyeva

Issayev

Baitenova

Maxutova

Internet of things in healthcare: a review

Advanced Informatics for Computing Research 2021

Singapore

Springer

192

Oshni Alvandi

Bain

Burstein

Understanding digital health ecosystem from Australian citizens' perspective: a scoping review

PLoS One 2021 16 11 e0260058

10.1371/journal.pone.0260058

34780547

PONE-D-21-30359

PMC8592460

193

Pandey

Agarwal

Shukla

Verma

Security of healthcare data using blockchains

Blockchain in Digital Healthcare 2021

Boca Raton, Florida, United States

CRC Press

194

Philip

S R

Nair

Binoy

Medchain-medical record securance using blockchain

SSRN Journal 2020

10.2139/ssrn.3645450

195

Rastogi

Chaturvedi

Sagar

Tandon

Rastogi

Risk stratification for subjects suffering from lung carcinoma: healthcare 4.0 approach with medical diagnosis using computational intelligence

Internet of Things and Its Applications 2022

Cham

Springer

196

Ricciardi

Pita Barros

Bourek

Brouwer

Kelsey

Lehtonen

Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (EXPH)

How to govern the digital transformation of health services

Eur J Public Health 2019 10 01 29 Supplement_3 7 12

10.1093/eurpub/ckz165

31738442

5628049

PMC6859522

197

Schulz

Schönheit

Value-added process design for digital transformation in hospitals and medical networks

Digitalization in Healthcare 2021

Cham

Springer

198

Russo Spena

Cristina

Practising innovation in the healthcare ecosystem: the agency of third-party actors

J Business Industrial Market 2019 11 23 35 3 390 403

10.1108/jbim-01-2019-0048

199

Sulaiman

Håkansson

Karlsen

AI-enabled proactive mHealth: a review

ICT for Health, Accessibility and Wellbeing 2021

Cham

Springer

200

Veeraiah

Ravikumar

Integrated health care delivery system with IoT enabling technology

Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) 2020

2020 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI)

Dec 16-18, 2020

Las Vegas, NV, USA

10.1109/csci51800.2020.00156

201

Warraich

Califf

Krumholz

The digital transformation of medicine can revitalize the patient-clinician relationship

NPJ Digit Med 2018 1 49

10.1038/s41746-018-0060-2

31304328

PMC6550259

202

Vogt

Gersch

Spies

Bengler

Digital transformation in healthcare: how the potential of digital health is tackled to transform the care process of intensive care patients across all healthcare sectors

Digitalization Cases. Management for Professionals 2019

Cham

Springer

203

Wojturska

Medical data security in digital transformation of healthcare: assessment of e-Health solutions standarisation in the European Union

Ius et Admini 2021 44 1 76 96

10.15584/iuseta.2021.1.5

204

Wong

Maaß

Vodden

van Kessel

Sorbello

Buttigieg

Odone

European Public Health Association (EUPHA) Digital Health Section

The dawn of digital public health in Europe: implications for public health policy and practice

Lancet Reg Health Eur 2022 03 14 100316

10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100316

35132399

S2666-7762(22)00009-6

PMC8811486

205

Yang

Wang

Yang

Multimodal wearable intelligence for dementia care in healthcare 4.0: a survey

Inf Syst Front 2021 07 21

10.1007/s10796-021-10163-3

206

Ziadlou

Strategies during digital transformation to make progress in achievement of sustainable development by 2030

Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl) 2021 06 25 ahead-of-print ahead-of-print (forthcoming)

10.1108/LHS-08-2020-0056

34170648

207

Zippel-Schultz

Schultz

Helms

[Current status and future of telemonitoring : scenarios for telemedical care in 2025]

Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol 2017 09 28 3 245 56

10.1007/s00399-017-0520-4

28849391

10.1007/s00399-017-0520-4

208

Prinsloo

Sinha

von Solms

A review of industry 4.0 manufacturing process security risks

Applied Sci 2019 11 26 9 23 5105

10.3390/app9235105

209

Buchelt

Frączkiewicz-Wronka

Dobrowolska

The organizational aspect of human resource management as a determinant of the potential of polish hospitals to manage medical professionals in healthcare 4.0

Sustainability 2020 06 23 12 12 5118

10.3390/su12125118

210

Witte

Fuerstenau

Zarnekow

Digital health ecosystems for sensor technology integration - a qualitative study on the paradox of data openness

Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2020 2020

41st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2020

Dec 13-16, 2020

Hyderabad, India

211

Shabani

Will the European Health Data Space change data sharing rules?

Science 2022 03 25 375 6587 1357 9

10.1126/science.abn4874

35324305

212

Horgan

Hajduch

Vrana

Soderberg

Hughes

Omar

Lal

Kozaric

Cascini

Thaler

Solà-Morales

Romão

Destrebecq

Sky Gross

European health data space-an opportunity now to grasp the future of data-driven healthcare

Healthcare (Basel) 2022 08 26 10 9 1629

10.3390/healthcare10091629

36141241

healthcare10091629

PMC9498352

213

The Ethics of Medical Data Donation 2019

Cham

Springer

214

Kalra

The importance of real-world data to precision medicine

Per Med 2019 03 16 2 79 82

10.2217/pme-2018-0120

30724116

215

Dell

The power of virtual integration: an interview with Dell Computer's Michael Dell. Interview by Joan Magretta

Harv Bus Rev 1998 76 2 73 84

10177868

216

Wang

Tai

Wei

A virtual integration theory of improved supply-chain performance

J Manage Inform Syst 2014 12 08 23 2 41 64

10.2753/mis0742-1222230203

217

Ghosh

Dohan

Veldandi

Garfield

Digital transformation in healthcare: insights on value creation

J Comput Inform Syst 2022 05 03 63 2 449 59

10.1080/08874417.2022.2070798

218

Eden

Burton-Jones

Casey

Draheim

Digital transformation requires workforce transformation

MIS Q Executive 2019 3 1 18 1

10.17705/2msqe.00005

219

Wessel

Baiyere

Ologeanu-Taddei

Cha

Blegind Jensen

Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation

JAIS 2021 01 15 22 1 102 29

10.17705/1jais.00655

220

Rose

Highland

Karafa

Joffe

Patient advocacy organizations, industry funding, and conflicts of interest

JAMA Intern Med 2017 03 01 177 3 344 50

10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8443

28114624

2598094

221

Kallinikos

Tempini

Patient data as medical facts: social media practices as a foundation for medical knowledge creation

Inform Syst Res 2014 12 25 4 817 33

10.1287/isre.2014.0544

222

Bates

Heitmueller

Kakad

Saria

Why policymakers should care about “big data” in healthcare

Health Policy Technol 2018 06 7 2 211 6

10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.04.006

223

Coyle

Making the most of platforms: a policy research agenda

SSRN J 2016

10.2139/ssrn.2857188

224

Alt

Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets

Electron Markets 2020 04 01 30 1 1 13

10.1007/s12525-020-00413-8

225

Kutnjak

Pihiri

Furjan

Digital transformation case studies across industries – literature review

Proceedings of the 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO) 2019

42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO)

May 20-24, 2019

Opatija, Croatia

10.23919/mipro.2019.8756911