IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc71142.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Intelligence Monitor on Personal Health Systems, Phase 2 - Citizens and ICT for Health in 14 European Countries: Results from an Online Panel

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The Citizen Panel Survey carried out in SIMPHS2 to better assess users and patients' needs and expectations with regard to ICT for health, directly supports the objectives of the Digital Agenda in the area of eHealth which are to both cope with societal challenges and create opportunities for innovation and economic growth by reducing health inequalities, promoting active and healthy ageing and increasing empowerment. It also contributes to the goals of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Aging which addresses the societal challenge of an ageing population focusing on the main areas of life events (Prevention, Care and cure and Independent living) with the following expected results: - An improvement of the health status and quality of life of Europeans, especially older people; - An improvement of the sustainability and efficiency of health and social care systems; - Boosted EU competitiveness through an improved business environment for innovation. In this policy context the analysis of users' demand undertaken through the SIMPHS2 Citizen panel survey aims to: - develop typologies of digital healthcare users and measure the impact of ICT and the Internet on health status, health care demand and health management. - identify factors that can enhance or inhibit the role and use of Personal Health Systems from a citizen' s perspective with special emphasis on mHealth, RMT, disease management, Telecare, Telemedicine and Wellness. To reach these objectives, we started by defining a theoretical framework for policy-making, which was used to design and gather relevant information. A multivariate statistical analysis was subsequently carried out to identify the underlying conceptual dimensions emerging from the data collected. Key relationships between concepts (underlying dimensions) were identified to understand ICT for Health as a complex ecosystem. We concluded with some lessons learned.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Lupianez-Villanueva & Ioannis Maghiros & Fabienne Abadie, 2012. "Strategic Intelligence Monitor on Personal Health Systems, Phase 2 - Citizens and ICT for Health in 14 European Countries: Results from an Online Panel," JRC Research Reports JRC71142, Joint Research Centre.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc71142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC71142
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janneke PLANTENGA & Johan HANSEN, 1999. "Assessing equal opportunities in the European Union," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 138(4), pages 351-379, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neyer, Gerda, 2003. "Family Policies and Low Fertility in Western Europe," Discussion Paper 161, Center for Intergenerational Studies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    2. Mia Latta, 2000. "Side-streaming gender? The potential and pitfalls of the European ideology on mainstreaming gender issues," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 6(2), pages 290-304, May.
    3. Kène Henkens & Yolanda Grift & Jacques Siegers, 2002. "Changes in Female Labour Supply in the Netherlands 1989–1998: The Case of Married and Cohabiting Women," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 39-57, March.
    4. Valkovičová Veronika, 2017. "The Struggle of Benchmarking and Ranking Gender Equality: The Case of the European Institute for Gender Equality," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 23(77), pages 9-38, March.
    5. Ignacio Amate-Fortes & Almudena Guarnido-Rueda & Diego Martínez-Navarro & Francisco J. Oliver-Márquez, 2021. "Measuring inequality in income distribution between men and women: what causes gender inequality in Europe?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 395-418, April.
    6. Dan Dumitru Ionescu & Alina Mariuca Ionescu, 2015. "Predictors of work life balance for women entrepreneurs in the North East Region of Romania," Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, Pro Global Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 37-46, June.
    7. O'Reilly Jacqueline, 2008. "Can a Basic Income Lead to a More Gender Equal Society?," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-7, December.
    8. Jacqueline O’Reilly, 2006. "Framing comparisons: gendering perspectives on cross-national comparative research on work and welfare," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 20(4), pages 731-750, December.
    9. Roger Feldman, 2013. "Filled Radar Charts Should not be Used to Compare Social Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 709-712, May.
    10. Alang Tho & Tran Quang Tri, 2022. "Investigating female employees’ work-life balance practices under the Covid-19 pandemic," HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE - SOCIAL SCIENCES, HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY, vol. 12(1), pages 144-155.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ICT; citizen; panel; survey; health; eHealth; users;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc71142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.