ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2018
Bridging clinical researcher perceptions and health IT realities: A case study of stakeholder creep.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Action Opportunities to Pursue Responsible Digital Care for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Qualitative Study.JMIR mental health · 2024Article
- Article
- Electronic health record closed-loop referral ("eReferral") to a state tobacco quitline: a retrospective case study of primary care implementation challenges and adaptations.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Sustainable Adoption of Digital Health Innovations: Perspectives From a Stakeholder Workshop.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Using digital health to enable ethical health research in conflict and other humanitarian settings.Conflict and health · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe present a case report detailing a challenge in health information technology (HIT) project implementations we term "stakeholder creep": not thoroughly identifying which stakeholders need to be involved and why before starting a project, consequently not understanding the true effort, skill sets, social capital, and time required to complete the project.
methodsA root cause analysis was performed post-implementation to understand what led to stakeholder creep. HIT project stakeholders were given a questionnaire to comment on these misconceptions and a proposed implementation tool to help mitigate stakeholder creep.
findingsStakeholder creep contributed to an unexpected increase in time (3-month delayed go-live) and effort (68% over expected HIT work hours). Four main clinician/researcher misconceptions were identified that contributed to the development of stakeholder creep: 1) that EHR IT is a single group; 2) that all EHR IT members know the entire EHR functionality; 3) that changes to an EHR need the input of just a single EHR IT member; and 4) that the technological complexity of a project mirrors the clinical complexity. HIT project stakeholders similarly perceived clinicians/researchers to hold these misconceptions. The proposed stakeholder planning tool was perceived to be feasible and helpful.
conclusionsStakeholder creep can negatively affect HIT project implementations. Projects may be susceptible to stakeholder creep when clinicians/researchers hold misconceptions related to HIT organization and processes. Implementation tools, such as the proposed stakeholder checklist, could be helpful in preempting and mitigating the effect of stakeholder creep.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.