Research Appraisalother

Digital Transformation in Health Care: Are We on the Right Track?

Journal of medical Internet researchTortorella, Guilherme, Fogliatto, Flavio, Vassolo, Roberto et al.21 July 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

20CEBM
Evidence: Weakother

PICO Framework

P — PopulationHealth care systems, organisations, and stakeholders engaged in or affected by digital transformation initiatives globally
I — InterventionDigital transformation in health care, conceptualised across six sociotechnical dimensions: people, culture, goals (social); processes/procedures, infrastructure, and technology (technical)
C — ComparatorNo formal comparator; the paper contrasts elements that encourage versus discourage digital transformation progress (on-track vs off-track elements)
O — OutcomesFormulation of 12 theoretical propositions across sociotechnical dimensions to guide future empirical testing, policy development, and regulatory reform in health care digital transformation

Bottom Line

This conceptual discussion paper from a multidisciplinary team of industrial and systems engineering academics proposes a sociotechnical framework for evaluating health care digital transformation, generating 12 untested propositions across six dimensions. While the theoretical scaffolding is coherent and the topic is clinically important, the paper makes no empirical contribution. It presents no patient data, no systematic evidence synthesis, and no quantitative outcomes. The propositions are expert opinion, not evidence. For senior clinicians and health system leaders, the paper may serve as a useful conceptual map for structuring conversations about digital health strategy — particularly the distinction between social barriers (workforce culture, change resistance, misaligned goals) and technical barriers (infrastructure gaps, interoperability failures). However, it should not be used to justify specific clinical or policy decisions. The CEBM evidence level is approximately Level 5 (expert opinion). Clinicians and health informaticists seeking evidence to guide digital transformation investments should prioritise systematic reviews, implementation science studies, and health technology assessments over frameworks of this type. The paper's primary value lies in agenda-setting for future empirical research rather than informing current practice.

Evidence: Weak

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not applicable — no statistical testing performed

  • Effect Size: Not applicable — no quantitative effect sizes reported

  • Primary Outcome: Formulation of 12 theoretical propositions across six sociotechnical dimensions (people, culture, goals, processes/procedures, infrastructure, technology) intended to characterise on-track and off-track elements of health care digital transformation

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not applicable — conceptual/opinion paper; no NNT, sensitivity, specificity, or hazard ratios calculable

  • Confidence Interval: Not applicable — no confidence intervals reported

Clinical Application

The sociotechnical framework is conceptually accessible and could be used as a structured discussion tool in health service planning workshops or digital health strategy reviews. However, operationalising the 12 propositions into actionable policy or clinical governance frameworks would require substantial further empirical work and local contextualisation. One lead author is affiliated with the University of Melbourne, providing some Australian institutional grounding. The paper's themes are broadly relevant to Australia's ongoing digital health agenda, including the My Health Record system, the Australian Digital Health Agency's National Digital Health Strategy 2023–2028, and RACGP guidance on digital health in general practice. The sociotechnical dimensions identified — particularly workforce readiness (people), organisational culture, and infrastructure — directly mirror challenges documented in Australian digital health implementation evaluations. TGA regulatory considerations for Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and the PBS digital prescribing rollout are relevant technical-dimension parallels. However, the paper does not reference Australian-specific evidence, and its propositions would need validation within the Australian health system context before informing RACGP or ACSQHC policy. Health system administrators, clinical informaticists, digital health policy makers, and health care executives involved in planning or evaluating digital transformation initiatives. Not directly applicable to individual patient care decisions.

Abstract

Health care digital transformation is gaining increasing attention, despite the observed challenges in its implementation. The envisioned benefits, together with the growing need for better health care, are motivating academia, organizations, regulatory agencies, and governments to develop more effective digital health care solutions. Through extensive debates among the authors, this paper discusses how digital transformation is being conducted in the health care sector. Our discussion relies on concepts from sociotechnical systems theory, categorizing it into 3 social (people, culture, and goals) and 3 technical (processes/procedures, infrastructure, and technology) dimensions. Drawing on both the literature discussed in this paper and our combined academic and practical experience-each author contributing over a decade of work in health care digital transformation-we examined current digitalization efforts from a sociotechnical standpoint. Overall, we argue that both social and technical dimensions present elements that have either encouraged or discouraged the progress of health care digital transformation. The identification of current trends on such (on- and off-track) elements allowed the formulation of 12 propositions across each sociotechnical dimension for future testing and validation. This approach can help establish better government policies, foster private initiatives, and shift regulatory guidelines to support a successful digital transformation in health systems. Finally, from a research perspective, we outline some opportunities for further interdisciplinary investigation in the field, promoting advances in the understanding of health care digital transformation.

References

  1. 1.Tortorella, G., Fogliatto, F., Vassolo, R., Cawley, A. M., & Tlapa, D. (2026). Digital transformation in health care: Are we on the right track? Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/90380
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service