Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22589569›Full record

SynthesisBulletin of the World Health Organization2012

Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review.

Frances S Mair, Carl May, Catherine O'Donnell, Tracy Finch, Frank Sullivan, Elizabeth Murray

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 241 papers, 26 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
241citing papers in PubMed, 26 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

241 citing papers in PubMed, 26 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Effectiveness of Internet-based interventions in managing chemotherapy-related symptoms in patients with cancer: a systematic literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

181 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Frances S MairInstitute of Health and WellBeing, University of Glasgow, Scotland. frances.mair@glasgow.ac.uk
Carl May
Catherine O'Donnell
Tracy Finch
Frank Sullivan
Elizabeth Murray

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review the literature on the implementation of e-health to identify: (i) barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation, and (ii) outstanding gaps in research on the subject.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched for reviews published between 1 January 1995 and 17 March 2009. Studies had to be systematic reviews, narrative reviews, qualitative metasyntheses or meta-ethnographies of e-health implementation. Abstracts and papers were double screened and data were extracted on country of origin; e-health domain; publication date; aims and methods; databases searched; inclusion and exclusion criteria and number of papers included. Data were analysed qualitatively using normalization process theory as an explanatory coding framework.

findingsInclusion criteria were met by 37 papers; 20 had been published between 1995 and 2007 and 17 between 2008 and 2009. Methodological quality was poor: 19 papers did not specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 13 did not indicate the precise number of articles screened. The use of normalization process theory as a conceptual framework revealed that relatively little attention was paid to: (i) work directed at making sense of e-health systems, specifying their purposes and benefits, establishing their value to users and planning their implementation; (ii) factors promoting or inhibiting engagement and participation; (iii) effects on roles and responsibilities; (iv) risk management, and (v) ways in which implementation processes might be reconfigured by user-produced knowledge.

conclusionThe published literature focused on organizational issues, neglecting the wider social framework that must be considered when introducing new technologies.

Indexed as

Attitude to ComputersEfficiency, OrganizationalOrganizational CultureProgram DevelopmentElectronic Health RecordsHealth Services ResearchHumansProgram EvaluationQuality of Health CareTelemedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22589569
PMCPMC3341692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.