Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39497787›Full record

ReviewDigital health

What engagement strategies are useful in facilitating the implementation of electronic health records in health care settings? A rapid review of qualitative evidence synthesis using the normalization process theory.

Campion Zharima, Samantha Mhlanga, Saira Abdulla, Jane Goudge, Frances Griffiths

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

5 authors.

Campion ZharimaCentre for Health Policy (CHP), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0286-1392
Samantha MhlangaCentre for Health Policy (CHP), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Saira AbdullaCentre for Health Policy (CHP), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jane GoudgeCentre for Health Policy (CHP), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Frances GriffithsMedical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-1438

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to identify and describe the engagement strategies used in implementing electronic health records in health care settings and to ascertain why they were successful or not, using normalization process theory. Methods: In this rapid review, we searched PubMed and CINAHL for qualitative and mixed methods primary studies published from 2010 to 2023 (June). We identified 41 studies that explored the implementation of EHRs, involving clinicians as participants. For quality appraisal, we employed the standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) tool. For analysis, a qualitative comparative analysis, using the normalization process theory was conducted. This was followed by a narrative synthesis to compile and analyze key findings. Results: About 56% ( Conclusion: User engagement improves the chances of successful implementation, particularly if engagement strategies are effective for the specific stages of implementation. The success of these strategies is more evident when they ensure normalization process theory tenets, which include user coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflective monitoring.

Indexed as

electronic health recordshealthcare settinghormalization process theoryimplementationqualitativerapid reviewUser engagement

Identifiers

PMID39497787
PMCPMC11533323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.