16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Three decades of telemedicine in Brazil: Mapping the regulatory framework from 1990 to 2018

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study characterized the evolution of Brazilian public telemedicine policy in the Brazilian Unified Health System for 30 years from 1988 to 2019 by analyzing its legal framework. We identified 79 telemedicine-related legislations from the federal government (laws, decrees, and ordinances) and 31 regulations of federal councils of health professionals. Three historical phases were established according to the public policy cycle, and material was classified according to the purpose of the normative documents. The content analysis was based on the advocacy coalition framework model. Of the federal legislations, 8.9% were for the Formulation/Decision-Making phase, 43% for the Organization/Implementation phase, and 48.1% for the Expansion/Maturation phase of telemedicine policy in Brazil. The Federal Council of Medicine was the most active in standardizing telemedicine and was responsible for 21 (67.7%) regulations. The first legislations were passed in 2000; however, the coalitions discussed topics related to telemedicine and created their belief systems from the 1990’s. The time cycle which included formulation and decision making for Brazilian telemedicine policy, extended until 2007 with the creation of several technical working groups. The expansion and maturation of telemedicine services began in 2011 with the decentralization of telemedicine policy actions across the country. Telemedicine centers which performed telediagnosis influenced the computerization of primary health care units. We conclude that Brazilian telemedicine field has greatly grown and changed in recent years. However, despite the proliferation of legislations and regulations in the period studied, there is still no fully consolidated process for setting up a wholly defined regulatory framework for telemedicine in Brazil.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review

          Introduction and objective Studies on telemedicine have shown success in reducing the geographical and time obstacles incurred in the receipt of care in traditional modalities with the same or greater effectiveness; however, there are several barriers that need to be addressed in order for telemedicine technology to spread. The aim of this review is to evaluate barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide through the analysis of published work. Methods The authors conducted a systematic literature review by extracting the data from the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PubMed (MEDLINE) research databases. The reviewers in this study analysed 30 articles (nine from CINAHL and 21 from Medline) and identified barriers found in the literature. This review followed the checklist from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009. The reviewers organized the results into one table and five figures that depict the data in different ways, organized by: barrier, country-specific barriers, organization-specific barriers, patient-specific barriers, and medical-staff and programmer-specific barriers. Results The reviewers identified 33 barriers with a frequency of 100 occurrences through the 30 articles. The study identified the issues with technically challenged staff (11%), followed by resistance to change (8%), cost (8%), reimbursement (5%), age of patient (5%), and level of education of patient (5%). All other barriers occurred at or less than 4% of the time. Discussion and conclusions Telemedicine is not yet ubiquitous, and barriers vary widely. The top barriers are technology-specific and could be overcome through training, change-management techniques, and alternating delivery by telemedicine and personal patient-to-provider interaction. The results of this study identify several barriers that could be eliminated by focused policy. Future work should evaluate policy to identify which one to lever to maximize the results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Video consultations for covid-19

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What is e-health?

              Introduction Everybody talks about e-health these days, but few people have come up with a clear definition of this comparatively new term. Barely in use before 1999, this term now seems to serve as a general "buzzword," used to characterize not only "Internet medicine", but also virtually everything related to computers and medicine. The term was apparently first used by industry leaders and marketing people rather than academics. They created and used this term in line with other "e-words" such as e-commerce, e-business, e-solutions, and so on, in an attempt to convey the promises, principles, excitement (and hype) around e-commerce (electronic commerce) to the health arena, and to give an account of the new possibilities the Internet is opening up to the area of health care. Intel, for example, referred to e-health as "a concerted effort undertaken by leaders in health care and hi-tech industries to fully harness the benefits available through convergence of the Internet and health care." Because the Internet created new opportunities and challenges to the traditional health care information technology industry, the use of a new term to address these issues seemed appropriate. These "new" challenges for the health care information technology industry were mainly (1) the capability of consumers to interact with their systems online (B2C = "business to consumer"); (2) improved possibilities for institution-to-institution transmissions of data (B2B = "business to business"); (3) new possibilities for peer-to-peer communication of consumers (C2C = "consumer to consumer"). So, how can we define e-health in the academic environment? One JMIR Editorial Board member feels that the term should remain in the realm of the business and marketing sector and should be avoided in scientific medical literature and discourse. However, the term has already entered the scientific literature (today, 76 Medline-indexed articles contain the term "e-health" in the title or abstract). What remains to be done is - in good scholarly tradition - to define as well as possible what we are talking about. However, as another member of the Editorial Board noted, "stamping a definition on something like e-health is somewhat like stamping a definition on 'the Internet': It is defined how it is used - the definition cannot be pinned down, as it is a dynamic environment, constantly moving." It seems quite clear that e-health encompasses more than a mere technological development. I would define the term and concept as follows: e-health is an emerging field in the intersection of medical informatics, public health and business, referring to health services and information delivered or enhanced through the Internet and related technologies. In a broader sense, the term characterizes not only a technical development, but also a state-of-mind, a way of thinking, an attitude, and a commitment for networked, global thinking, to improve health care locally, regionally, and worldwide by using information and communication technology. This definition hopefully is broad enough to apply to a dynamic environment such as the Internet and at the same time acknowledges that e-health encompasses more than just "Internet and Medicine". As such, the "e" in e-health does not only stand for "electronic," but implies a number of other "e's," which together perhaps best characterize what e-health is all about (or what it should be). Last, but not least, all of these have been (or will be) issues addressed in articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. The 10 e's in "e-health" Efficiency - one of the promises of e-health is to increase efficiency in health care, thereby decreasing costs. One possible way of decreasing costs would be by avoiding duplicative or unnecessary diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, through enhanced communication possibilities between health care establishments, and through patient involvement. Enhancing quality of care - increasing efficiency involves not only reducing costs, but at the same time improving quality. E-health may enhance the quality of health care for example by allowing comparisons between different providers, involving consumers as additional power for quality assurance, and directing patient streams to the best quality providers. Evidence based - e-health interventions should be evidence-based in a sense that their effectiveness and efficiency should not be assumed but proven by rigorous scientific evaluation. Much work still has to be done in this area. Empowerment of consumers and patients - by making the knowledge bases of medicine and personal electronic records accessible to consumers over the Internet, e-health opens new avenues for patient-centered medicine, and enables evidence-based patient choice. Encouragement of a new relationship between the patient and health professional, towards a true partnership, where decisions are made in a shared manner. Education of physicians through online sources (continuing medical education) and consumers (health education, tailored preventive information for consumers) Enabling information exchange and communication in a standardized way between health care establishments. Extending the scope of health care beyond its conventional boundaries. This is meant in both a geographical sense as well as in a conceptual sense. e-health enables consumers to easily obtain health services online from global providers. These services can range from simple advice to more complex interventions or products such a pharmaceuticals. Ethics - e-health involves new forms of patient-physician interaction and poses new challenges and threats to ethical issues such as online professional practice, informed consent, privacy and equity issues. Equity - to make health care more equitable is one of the promises of e-health, but at the same time there is a considerable threat that e-health may deepen the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". People, who do not have the money, skills, and access to computers and networks, cannot use computers effectively. As a result, these patient populations (which would actually benefit the most from health information) are those who are the least likely to benefit from advances in information technology, unless political measures ensure equitable access for all. The digital divide currently runs between rural vs. urban populations, rich vs. poor, young vs. old, male vs. female people, and between neglected/rare vs. common diseases. In addition to these 10 essential e's, e-health should also be easy-to-use, entertaining (no-one will use something that is boring!) and exciting - and it should definitely exist! We invite other views on the definition of e-health and hope that over time the journal will be filled with articles which together elucidate the realm of e-health. Gunther Eysenbach Editor, Journal of Medical Internet Research
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                25 November 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 11
                : e0242869
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Human Rights, Health and Cultural Diversity, Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [2 ] Department of Medicines and Pharmaceutical Services Policies, Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [3 ] Institute of Scientific and Technological Communication and Information in Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [4 ] Telehealth Unit, Department of Research and Teaching, Federal Hospital of State Employees, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [5 ] Department of Collective Health, Medical School of Petrópolis, Faculdade Arthur Sá Earp Neto, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [6 ] Department of Health Policy, Planning and Administration, Institute of Social Medicine, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: We, the authors of the manuscript named “Three Decades of Telemedicine in Brazil: Mapping the regulatory framework from 1990 to 2018” have no conflict of interest to declare.

                ‡ GRR, ACCMG, DLS, and CCN also contributed equally to this work. RC is a joint senior author on this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0292-5106
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7797-3474
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5370-9908
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6318-0809
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6899-3262
                Article
                PONE-D-20-09113
                10.1371/journal.pone.0242869
                7688174
                33237947
                7f112205-5936-4785-9f5d-60882e0a6e10
                © 2020 Silva et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 March 2020
                : 10 November 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 20
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003593, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico;
                Award ID: 305439 / 2017-0
                Award Recipient :
                This manuscript is one of the products of an ongoing project, entitled Model for Assessment of Telemedicine Services and Applications (MAST): Adaptation and Validation for the Brazilian context coordinated by one of the co-authors (CR). This research received a research grant from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) n° 305439 / 2017-0, site < http://cnpq.br>. The resource received financed the certified translation of the manuscript and will help partially finance its publication, if accepted by PlosOne. The CNPq did not participate in the study design, data collection, data analysis, decision to publish, or prepare the submitted manuscript. There is no other funding, including from the authors’ home institutions. The other authors of the manuscript - ABS, RMS, GRR, DLS, ACCMG, and CCN - did not receive specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Medical Services
                Telemedicine
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                South America
                Brazil
                Social Sciences
                Law and Legal Sciences
                Legislation
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Social Sciences
                Political Science
                Public Policy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Global Health
                Social Sciences
                Law and Legal Sciences
                Regulations
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Administration and Management
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. The database file is also available from the Zenodo database (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4012555).

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article