Background: The rapid growth of digital health technologies has highlighted the importance of eHealth literacy, which is crucial for navigating health information and tools such as telemedicine and eHealth records. However, older adults often have reservations about digital technologies and face barriers due to cognitive, sensory, and motor impairments, which hinder their ability to effectively use digital health applications. Despite its relevance, research on eHealth literacy in older populations is limited, with a particular gap in understanding how self-assessments of eHealth literacy correlate with health characteristics. Objective: The study seeks to explore eHealth literacy among hospitalized geriatric patients in Germany. The main objective is to evaluate the eHealth literacy level within this particular group and identify the clinical and sociodemographic factors that may influence it. Methods: Data from this observational study were analyzed to explore characteristics influencing eHealth literacy in hospitalized geriatric patients. The study included patients aged 60 or older in the Department of Geriatric Medicine at Marien Hospital Herne and enrolled in the standardized early rehabilitation pathway. eHealth literacy was measured using the German version of the eHealth Literacy Scale (GR-eHEALS), a self-assessment tool. Sociodemographic and clinical data, including cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]), frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS]), and depression (Depression in Old Age Scale [DIA-S]), were collected. Statistical analyses involved descriptive statistics, tests, chi-square tests, and regression analyses to examine the relationship between eHealth literacy and various factors. Sociodemographic and clinical data, including cognitive function (MoCA), frailty (CFS), and depression (DIA-S), were collected. Results: A total of 244 participants (aged 60‐97, mean 77.2, SD 6.9 years) were included in the analysis. Participants generally reported an eHealth literacy, with higher scores in “information seeking” (mean 3.64, SD 0.84) compared to “information appraisal” (mean 3.32, SD 0.80). Significant differences in eHealth literacy were observed by age, with older participants scoring lower on both subscales. Frailty was significantly associated with critical appraisal of online health information (B=–1.372, 95% CI –2.554 to –0.189), suggesting that individuals who are frail struggle more with evaluating health information. No significant associations were found with other sociodemographic variables, including MoCA scores, education, or gender. Conclusions: While the findings suggest a positive self-reported ability to engage with digital health tools, the selective sample and reliance on self-assessment limit the accuracy of these results. It also emphasizes the need for tailored interventions to support older adults in improving their eHealth literacy, particularly those with higher levels of frailty. Further research, including longitudinal studies and objective assessments, is essential to better understand and address the digital health needs of the geriatric population. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00032931; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00032931

eHealth, Inc. reports impressive financial results for the third quarter of 2026, showcasing a robust growth trajectory in the online health insurance marketplace.

Background: Despite promising developments in eHealth, a critical gap remains in understanding how to design and implement digital self-management interventions that effectively align with users’ needs and the complex context of recovery after treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: This study aimed to develop and iteratively refine a digital self-management intervention for post–intensive care recovery and to explore related user experiences and #usability among individuals with lived ICU experience. Methods: A multimethod participatory development process was used including individuals with lived ICU experience (both survivors and family members) and health care professionals involved in ICU recovery. Between April 2022 and July 2026, guided by the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management Roadmap consisting of 5 phases, data were collected through inspiration sessions and feedback rounds, individual interviews, #usability testing, and pilot use, with qualitative data analyzed thematically and quantitative data analyzed descriptively. Findings from each phase informed the subsequent development steps and were revisited when necessary. The study focused on the specification and iterative refinement of the intervention’s core components based on identified values and contextual requirements, complemented by preliminary indicators of #usability and descriptive usage metrics. Results: Through stakeholder engagement, key functionalities were defined, including structured recovery information, easy 24-7 access, and guidance in navigating care. Two digital self-management modules, the ICU-RecoveryPointer for ICU survivors and the ICU-FamilyCoach for family members, were developed comprising (1) structured information aligned with the different phases of ICU recovery, (2) concise information tiles with layered content for more in-depth background information, (3) patient-reported e-monitoring features, (4) tailored suggestions addressing recovery challenges and emotional processing, (5) an e-diary with a timeline summary function, and (6) a comprehensive content library. During the pilot phase, the ICU-RecoveryPointer reached 33 linked accounts, with 27 users logging in at least once, whereas the ICU-FamilyCoach reached 66 accounts, with 90 monthly unique-user observations. Usage was primarily concentrated on the information tiles, suggesting that users mainly accessed the informational content within the modules. Conclusions: Two digital self-management modules were designed through a participatory and iterative development process, supporting individuals with lived ICU experience during the recovery trajectory. Preliminary user experiences and usage data provided initial insights into #usability and engagement, while also highlighting the need for further evaluation before broader implementation.

Healthcare interoperability has come a long way, but moving data between organizations is only part of the challenge. The bigger question is whether that data is trusted, useful, and actually supporting the workflows healthcare organizations need. That's the direction Doug Dietzman wants to continue taking eHealth Exchange as he leads the organization into its next

Healthcare interoperability has come a long way, but moving data between organizations is only part of the challenge. The bigger question is whether that data is trusted, useful, and actually supporting the workflows healthcare organizations need. That's the direction Doug Dietzman wants to continue taking eHealth Exchange as he leads the organization into its next

Reported Thursday, Nov 5 - 9:32am EST (TheFly subscription required to read more.)

Reported Wednesday, Nov 4 - 4:40pm EST (TheFly subscription required to read more.)

Reported Wednesday, Nov 4 - 4:38pm EST (TheFly subscription required to read more.)

eHealth (Nasdaq: EHTH) announced its financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2026, with materials available online. The earnings release and presentation are accessible on its investor relations website. A webcast and conference call is scheduled for November 4, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, with live and archived webcasts available under Events & Presentations.

Het eHealth-platform speelt een centrale rol in de digitale gegevensuitwisseling binnen de Belgische gezondheidszorg.

Background: The integration of eHealth solutions into routine health care remains challenging despite their potential to improve care quality and efficiency. Living labs (LLs) have emerged as an approach to addressing these challenges by enabling co-design and iterative testing of eHealth tools. LLs promote collaboration among patients, health care professionals, developers, and policy makers. However, systematic insights into their practical implementation remain limited. Objective: This study explores the use of an LL approach to dynamically create and adapt project workflows, as well as its potential as a methodological framework for developing an implementation plan for a digital prescribing workflow (eRIKA [eRezept als Element Interprofessioneller Versorgungspfade für Kontinuierliche Arzneimitteltherapiesicherheit]). The analysis focuses on intervention-level insights identified throughout the LL process. The study also reflects on the limitations of the approach. Methods: The co-design process was structured into 4 thematic sprints conducted across 3 regions in Germany (Saarland, Berlin, and Westphalia-Lippe) between November 2022 and September 2024. Workshops were held with general practitioners (GPs), pharmacists (PHs), medical assistants, and pharmacy technicians recruited from 6 GP practices, 6 pharmacies, and 1 hospital (n=17). Audio-recorded workshop data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified: (1) Workflow Efficiency, encompassing demands for filtering and prioritization mechanisms to manage information volume, direct digital communication channels, and concerns about workload; (2) Technical Implementation, addressing the need for seamless system integration, data integrity of the medication history, and interoperability with existing practice management systems; and (3) A New Way of Working, reflecting interprofessional negotiations around roles and responsibilities and regulatory requirements, including data privacy. Notably, strongly divergent views emerged between GPs and PHs regarding what data PHs require to conduct effective medication safety reviews. Conclusions: Consistent with previous research, the results highlight concerns about workload, system interoperability, roles and responsibilities, and regulatory barriers to implementation. Beyond these established challenges, the results also reveal interprofessional tensions between GPs and PHs regarding the extent of data sharing required for effective pharmaceutical counseling. These findings inform the subsequent phase 1 and phase 2 evaluation studies and contribute to the growing evidence base on LL methodology in digital health implementation.

Welcome to our Healthcare IT Today Weekly Roundup. Each week, we’ll be providing a look back at the articles we posted and why they’re important to the healthcare IT community. We hope this gives you a chance to catch up on anything you may have missed during the week. What's Next for eHealth Exchange? President

Welcome to our Healthcare IT Today Weekly Roundup. Each week, we’ll be providing a look back at the articles we posted and why they’re important to the healthcare IT community. We hope this gives you a chance to catch up on anything you may have missed during the week. What's Next for eHealth Exchange? President

Background: Effective patient portal access and use require both digital navigation and understanding of clinical information. Health literacy and eHealth literacy reflect these different demands. Although the 2 constructs overlap, prior research often treats them as interchangeable. It remains unclear whether health literacy and eHealth literacy are associated differently across stages of portal engagement and patterns of portal use. A systematic review is therefore needed to identify consistent patterns across studies. Objective: This study aimed to synthesize associations of health literacy and eHealth literacy with patient portal access, general use, feature-specific use, and frequency of use. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to March 2026 using keywords related to health literacy, eHealth literacy, patient portals, and portal access or use. We included English-language peer-reviewed articles and gray literature involving adults who used real-world patient portals, measured health literacy or eHealth literacy using validated instruments, and reported quantitative associations with portal access or use. Because studies differed substantially in literacy instruments, portal outcomes, and outcome measures, we used direction-based vote counting, complemented by narrative synthesis. Reporting followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, whereas synthesis methods were guided by the Cochrane Handbook for synthesis without meta-analysis. For full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles, we assessed the risk of bias by using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. Results: Among 1107 screened studies, 30 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 17 examined health literacy only, 10 examined eHealth literacy only, and 3 examined both constructs in the same sample. Studies focused far more on portal use than on portal access and emphasized general portal use over feature-specific outcomes. Any use was assessed more often than frequency of use. Nine of 10 directionally codable eHealth literacy studies of general portal use showed lower use among individuals with lower eHealth literacy, whereas health literacy findings for general portal use were mixed. Lower health literacy showed a more consistent pattern of lower portal access and several feature-specific outcomes, although comparable eHealth literacy evidence for these outcomes was limited. Most studies met the majority of JBI criteria, although most measured portal use via self-report rather than objective system data. Conclusions: Nearly every directionally codable eHealth literacy study reported lower portal use among patients with lower eHealth literacy. Lower health literacy showed similar patterns for portal access and several feature-specific outcomes. These consistent associations point to literacy-related disparities at multiple stages of portal engagement, although comparable within-sample evidence remains limited. Future studies should measure both constructs in the same sample, use comparable modeling approaches, use objective portal log data when possible, and distinguish access, any use, frequency, and feature-specific behaviors to identify where literacy-related disparities emerge. Trial Registration:

Click to view the official SEC document.

npj Digital Medicine - Cultural adaptation of internet- and mobile-based interventions for mental disorders: a systematic review

CareConnect incident on October 30, 2026: Description: eHealth is investigating an incident affecting multiple services, teams are working to restore the situation as soon as possibl Started 9:13 AM UTC, resolved ongoing (● 5m). Affected: eHealth General Issues (eHealth General Issues).