The DOI matches its Crossref record; 213 of the 223 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 72 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta‐narrative Method
Open accessAbstract
Context: The extensive research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches. Methods: Using the meta‐narrative method and searching beyond the Medline‐indexed literature, this review used “conflicting” findings to address higher‐order questions about how researchers had differently conceptualized and studied the EPR and its implementation. Findings: Twenty‐four previous systematic reviews and ninety‐four further primary studies were considered. Key tensions in the literature centered on (1) the EPR (“container” or “itinerary”); (2) the EPR user (“information‐processer” or “member of socio‐technical network”); (3) organizational context (“the setting within which the EPR is implemented” or “the EPR‐in‐use”); (4) clinical work (“decision making” or “situated practice”); (5) the process of change (“the logic of determinism” or “the logic of opposition”); (6) implementation success (“objectively defined” or “socially negotiated”); and (7) complexity and scale (“the bigger the better” or “small is beautiful”). Conclusions: The findings suggest that EPR use will always require human input to recontextualize knowledge; that even though secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work may be made less efficient; that paper may offer a unique degree of ecological flexibility; and that smaller EPR systems may sometimes be more efficient and effective than larger ones. We suggest an agenda for further research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
66 No basis given · 60 Not checked yet · 23 Own result · 15 Own interpretation · 2 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nine Meta-narratives That Have Driven Research on the EPR in Organizations”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even when these preconditions were present, success was not guaranteed”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 2: Change Management Studies within Health Services Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
““Successful” implementation requires accommodation among perspectives.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 4: Information Systems (Interpretivist Approaches)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They have shown that clinical knowledge is often tacit, context bound, and ephemeral rather than codifiable, transferable, and enduring.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much (though not all) of health informatics has assumed that the benefits of a well-designed EPR with built-in “evidence-based” decision support are intrinsic and self-evident.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we were surprised that none of the reviews in this tradition included an estimate of its extent.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These rich ethnographies have illustrated, often in meticulous detail, that collaborative clinical work involves the ordering and coordination of tasks, which requires the real-time processing of local information.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings indicate that these hopes have yet to be realized.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 5: Information Systems (Technology-in-Practice Approaches)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Externally imposed deadlines and technical requirements constrain the process of mutual adaptation by which technologies and work processes become aligned.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 4: Information Systems (Interpretivist Approaches)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies consistently showed that introducing the EPR in an organization or across organizations is a complex task.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 2: Change Management Studies within Health Services Research
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 74
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
- Probably not a substantial claim. 65
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We found eleven studies in this tradition, including papers that drew on institutional theory (Currie and Guah 2007), symbolic interactionism (Prasad 1993), organizational sense making (Brown and Jones 1998;Desjardins, Lapointe, and Pozzebon 2006), and “soft systems” action research (Checkland and Holwell 1998).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 4: Information Systems (Interpretivist Approaches)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Currie and Guah 2007
- Not checked yetcites Prasad 1993
- Not checked yetcites Brown and Jones 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found only three empirical studies in positivist IS research relevant to our research question (listed in table 2), all of which demonstrated that model-based analyses of the determinants of EPR success left much of the observed variance unexplained.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 3: Information Systems (Positivist Approaches)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found a complex and heterogeneous literature characterized by diverse philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology), how that reality might be known (epistemology), and the preferred research approaches and study designs (methodology).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ninety-four primary studies (described in 129 papers) outside the health informatics literature were philosophically pluralist, with 14 percent positivist, 19 percent interpretivist, 22 percent critical, and 55 percent recursive.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our exploratory reading identified a number of historical roots that informed later research on the EPR (see figure 2), including”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the latter literature, at least until recently, neither the technology nor its social context was considered in depth.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twenty-four previous systematic reviews and ninety-four further primary studies were considered.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As table 3 shows, they also were methodologically diverse, most with different types of case studies.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In relation to the EPR, this adaptation does not appear to be taking place or, at least, not taking place smoothly or unproblematically.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 5: Information Systems (Technology-in-Practice Approaches)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Key tensions in the literature centered on (1) the EPR (”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Key influences on the structuration process include the affordances (see the glossary) of the technology, the constraints of time and space, the conflicting meanings attached to the EPR by different groups, the patterns of human action and interaction associated with them, and how different “genres” of medical records are used and combined in both traditional and contemporary patterns of care.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 5: Information Systems (Technology-in-Practice Approaches)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found sixteen empirical studies in this meta-narrative (for details, see table 2), most of which were single-site or multisite organizational case studies, each of which had considered the impact of a range of potential enabling or constraining factors on the fortunes of a project to implement a new EPR system.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 2: Change Management Studies within Health Services Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found eleven empirical studies on the EPR using this tradition, and in addition, meta-narratives 7, 8, and 9 draw on the principles of CSCW.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the findings were highly consistent across studies: there are multiple and conflicting framings of the EPR by users (assumptions about it, expectations of it, versions of the problem to which it is seen as a solution), some of which are explained by deeply held institutional values”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 4: Information Systems (Interpretivist Approaches)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our own searches found twenty-four systematic reviews in this tradition covering more than 2,000 primary studies, each of which measured the impact of the EPR on some aspect of the quality, safety, or efficiency of care.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These four positions, which are described in more detail in table 1, overlap to some extent.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although health informatics has a large literature on technical design, it is separate from the literature on the implementation and use of such systems in organizations.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It requires a well-articulated vision and strategy, strong leadership, adequate resources, good project management, an enabling organizational culture, effective communication, and attention to human resource issues.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 2: Change Management Studies within Health Services Research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Adapting and extending previous taxonomies (de Vaujany 2005; Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991), we identified four main philosophical positions:”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites de Vaujany 2005
- Not checked yetcites Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recursive (and, to some extent, the interpretivist) research traditions share a more inclusive, holistic, and fluid view of context.Context is seen as an emergent property of action constituted by, and therefore inextricable from, an activity involving people and technologies.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Organizational Context
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We found twenty-two primary research studies in this tradition, along with an interdisciplinary literature review that was thorough but not explicitly systematic (Ash, Berg, and Coiera 2004).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 9: Systems Approaches to Risk and Integration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ash, Berg, and Coiera 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As table 2 shows, we found twelve such studies of the EPR, all of which drew on CSCW as well as ANT, plus two empirically informed theoretical papers from ANT (Iedema 2003;Moser and Law 2006).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 8: Actor-Network Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Iedema 2003
- Not checked yetcites Moser and Law 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most, but not all, the tensions are between studies that take a positivist worldview (broadly, meta-narratives 1 and 3) and those that take an interpretivist, critical, or recursive worldview (broadly, metanarratives 2 and 4 through 9), although some traditions (notably CSCW) embrace more than one philosophical position.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Synthesis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relational view sees the EPR user as inextricably linked to (indeed, as embodying and reproducing) wider social structures, institutions, or sociotechnical relationships (and perhaps as “shaping” the EPR rather than “using” it) and thus regards the collective as more than the sum of its parts.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR User
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Actor-network analyses of EPR technologies are highly regarded and extensively cited in the field of science and technology studies but have been either ignored or dismissed by most previous systematic reviews of the EPR.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 8: Actor-Network Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When used as a formal tool (e.g., with structured templates and a requirement for data to be coded), the EPR often slows down and frustrates the clinical encounter, but it greatly accelerates the secondary uses of clinical data.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found nine studies from a feminist perspective and three from a Foucauldian perspective.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 7: Critical Sociology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critical research traditions also tend to view context as an external reality, in this case made up of economic and social structures that constrain action (and do so in an unequal and potentially oppressive way).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Organizational Context
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positivist traditions tend to view clinical work as largely reducible to a series of decisions, and it follows that decision support technologies will help clinical work so long as they are properly designed and implemented.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positivist traditions tend to take an essentialist, functionalist, and determinist view of the EPR (it has inherent properties that will perform certain tasks and, if implemented properly, will more or less predictably improve the process and outcome of the clinical encounter).In contrast, nonpositivist traditions view the EPR as either a social construction (something whose meaning and purpose”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, this inseparability of the EPR from its context (the fact that context is constituted by the EPR-in-use) is a defining characteristic of literature that adopts a recursive philosophy.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Organizational Context
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The biomedical literature sometimes talks of “information superhighways” that will make clinical information instantly available in a way that transcends the context in which this information was originally collected (Detmer 2000).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Detmer 2000
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite its apparently negative conclusion that the EPR is often less fit for the purpose than paper is, the CSCW literature on the EPR does not oppose technology, for three reasons.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interpretivist and recursive traditions hold that the very notion of an “agreeable” EPR (or a single reality represented by it) is problematic.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The former perspective explains the nonuse of the EPR as a “knowledge gap,” “skills gap,” and “motivation gap” (thus as attributes of the individual actor) for which much of the solution is the provision of information, training, and incentives.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR User
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The tension here might be expressed as “clinical work as decisionmaking” versus “clinical work as situated practice,” and between “knowledge as transferable facts” versus “knowledge as informationin-context.””
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next we consider seven key themes, each of which has inherent tensions.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The alternative literature suggests that gains in the quality of care with EPR systems are likely to be relatively modest, incremental, local, and based on the study of articulations and workarounds (i.e., of the creative human work bridging the gap between technical design and clinical reality), although this view still recognizes the major potential efficiency savings that EPR systems offer for”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three studies from a (broadly) Foucauldian perspective link the introduction of the EPR with the rise in managerial surveillance and control of clinical work and draw on Foucault's concept of the panopticon.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 7: Critical Sociology
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Overall, this metanarrative provides considerable evidence that even though EPRs may contain features that protect against error, they also introduce new risks of their own, including cognitive overload, loss of overview, errors in data entry and retrieval, excessive trust in electronically held data, and the tendency to conflate data entry with communication within and among care teams (Ash et al”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 9: Systems Approaches to Risk and Integration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ash et al. 2009
- Not checked yetcites Weiner et al. 2007
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positivist traditions hold that the patient's condition and journey comprise a single reality to be represented in the EPR and so seek a single ideal and “agreeable” form of the record.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One aspect of the process of change that is addressed very differently by positivist and interpretivist/recursive traditions is design.As table 1 shows, there are two principal opposing philosophical positions on design: the conventional approach (whose roots are in positivism and whose focus is on engineering) and the participatory approach (whose roots are in interpretivism and whose focus is on”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The logic of opposition, in contrast, is fluid and contingent and contains inherent and unresolvable tensions.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(3) while secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work is often made less efficient;”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Policy decisions in many countries have accepted this view and used it to justify increasingly large-scale EPR initiatives (Kreps and Richardson 2007).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kreps and Richardson 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Berg talks of “growing” rather than building information systems and working to achieve synergy among three fundamental (re)design tasks: the technical system, the primary work process (e.g., clinical care), and the secondary work process (e.g., audit, management) (Berg 2003).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berg 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our review found no evidence that large-scale commercial IT systems in health care produce the benefits anticipated by their architects, and a few highquality studies suggest that they do not.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other cases, discipline hopping produced a study that claimed allegiance to one research tradition but operated on the assumptions of another or that used a methodological approach that sounded appropriate but had not been applied rigorously or consistently.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This review identified a number of studies on how actors made sense retrospectively of EPR projects, but we found very few published studies in which a sense-making or soft-systems approach was used prospectively in action research or comparable participatory designs.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“but critics of this type of program claim that this is a flawed assumption (Berg 2000).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berg 2000
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(5) paper will not necessarily disappear, as it offers a unique level of ecological flexibility (although workable paperless systems have been developed in one or two centers);”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The alternative view is that efficiency gains and economies of scale will never be realized because of the trade-off in loss of local, contextual detail (and thus the loss of knowledge) and the magnification of political disputes among stakeholders.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While such confused efforts at scholarship are a fact of academic life these days, the meta-narrative approach allowed us to identify systematically the distorted concepts and flawed reasoning that they contained.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In such a model, the change process is one of “good project management” that sets clear strategic goals and ensures that all parties work systematically toward these.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Accordingly, just as the “success” of a project may be talked up for political reasons, so “failed” projects should not be dismissed out of hand (Berg 2001).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berg 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This method allowed us to tease out a number of different streams of research and show how the seminal books and papers in each tradition inspired programs of theory building and empirical research.It also allowed us to compare and contrast these traditions in a structured way, as illustrated in table 2.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This review confirmed that even in the twenty-first century (when the work of researchers in other disciplines is readily accessible), most established scientists, most of the time, still operate largely within a single epistemic community and focus primarily or exclusively on the research questions being addressed by a relatively small group of colleagues.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, while positivist studies of collaborative clinical work view it as largely pertaining to the exchange of information among distributed decision makers (human and technological), interpretivist and recursive models place much greater emphasis on communication, one aspect of which is contextualizing work”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The EPR tends to be introduced as part of a project or program, whose success is generally (though not always) measured by some sort of evaluation.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These tensions are variously expressed as “competing institutional logics” (Scott 2001), the need for “accommodation” (Checkland and Holwell 1998), “sense making” (Weick 1995), “negotiating knowledge among different communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991;Østerlund and Carlile 2005), or “translation” (Latour 1992), approaches that have much conceptual common ground (Fox 1999;Weber and Glynn”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2001
- Not checked yetcites Checkland and Holwell 1998
- Not checked yetcites Weick 1995
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some papers claiming to be seminal (and sometimes cited as such) offered little more than an incoherent list of concepts and jargon phrases.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Critical traditions argue that the success of an EPR project also has an ethical dimension, asking, for example, who has the power to define what counts as success, who sponsors the evaluation and what its hidden aims are, and whose interests are (and are not) represented in the evaluation (Klecun and Cornford 2005).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Klecun and Cornford 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A final tension in the literature is between “the bigger the better” and “small is beautiful.””
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Progress in this meta-narrative is identified as shifting from parochial departmental HIS strategies and goals to institutional, national, and even international ones and also as the concomitant need to explore new, transinstitutional information system architectures and standards (Haux 2006).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haux 2006
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Positivist traditions generally assume that “success” can be measured unproblematically in terms of metrics (e.g., Does the technology work?What are its uptake and usage rates?How satisfied are users?)(Mitchell and Sullivan 2001) and that transferable “success factors” can be deduced from empirical studies.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mitchell and Sullivan 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The former view is frequently expounded in the HIS literature, whereas just as electronic systems are seen as inherently better than paper, so large, integrated systems are seen as having inherently greater value than small, isolated ones (a ubiquitous truism known as Metcalfe's law).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research conducted to date on the microdetail of collaborative clinical work from an ethnographic perspective appears to comprise fewer than twenty studies in total.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This view runs across most of the CSCW, technology-in-practice, and ANT literature and is captured in the law of medical information:”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hartswood, Procter, Rouncefield, Slack, and Voss (2003) offer a particularly eloquent exposition of the principles of codesign and call for the development of “shared practice” between designers and users.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hartswood, Procter, Rouncefield, Slack, and Voss (2003)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Steve Barley's classic demonstration in 1986 that a new technology introduced into the workplace is an “occasion for structuring” offered high hopes for the study of a new generation of technologies in the health care sector (Barley 1986).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 5: Information Systems (Technology-in-Practice Approaches)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barley 1986
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Orlikowski and her colleagues demonstrated that individuals, working collectively around common tasks in organizations, actively and explicitly shape both technologies and work routines in a mutually adaptive way (Orlikowski et al. 1995).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 5: Information Systems (Technology-in-Practice Approaches)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Orlikowski et al. 1995
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“But the reviewers concluded that “these [homegrown] interventions are by nature not widely generalisable” (Kupersmith et al. 2007, p. 5).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kupersmith et al. 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As the CSCW literature also has shown, health care work is uniquely complex and dependent on the coordinated practice of multiple actors.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 5: Information Systems (Technology-in-Practice Approaches)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“CSCW developed from human-computer interaction and considers the collaborative use of computers by people in the workplace (Ackerman 2000;Grudin 1988).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ackerman 2000
- Not checked yetcites Grudin 1988
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Car and colleagues found that while some primary studies and some, but not all, systematic reviews showed positive benefits from the EPR, the nature and magnitude of benefits were not consistent across studies, nor were there clear findings on how benefits might be maximized or what their opportunity cost might be.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Car et al. 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The preceding ideas, theories, and orientations provided many of the underpinning concepts for the meta-narratives of EPR research summarized in table 2 and described in more detail later.”
- Also stated in: § Overview and Historical Roots · plain
“Different meta-narratives are drawn eclectically and in different ways on all these roots.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Overview and Historical Roots · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our sample of primary studies is thus skewed toward the nonbiomedical literature, so the following statistics should be interpreted accordingly.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Overview and Historical Roots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Kaplan argued in 2001 that the criteria that many systematic reviewers in the HIS tradition used to select their sample of “high-quality” trials led them to focus on studies in which the very features that might explain the effect of different organizational contexts had been designed out (Kaplan 2001).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kaplan 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“These systems typically failed to meet expectations and incurred problems of fit with the detail of work practices.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shekelle and Goldzweig 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Shekelle and Goldzweig (2009) concluded that an EPR system should be considered as a complex intervention with four key components-technical, human, project management, and “organisational and cultural change”-all of which must be systematically studied.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shekelle and Goldzweig 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information systems (IS) research is a heterogeneous tradition that emerged in business schools to consider the role of technology in business and management.It embraces a long-standing tension between positivist and nonpositivist philosophical approaches.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 3: Information Systems (Positivist Approaches)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
““Failed” EPR projects may be explained by adverse changes in the temporal or spatial structuring of work consequent on introducing new technology, the fact that knowledge is linked in complex ways to identities and social practices, and limitations of the available technology.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 5: Information Systems (Technology-in-Practice Approaches)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Of particular note is a recent 600-page “review of reviews” embracing the EPR and other information and communications technology innovations, which covered thirty-seven previous systematic reviews (Car et al. 2008).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Car et al. 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a finding that perhaps reveals the known weaknesses of contingency theories in the study of organizational change (notably that they lack precision and fail to explain much of the observed variance).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 2: Change Management Studies within Health Services Research
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This predominantly positivist tradition was developed jointly by doctors with an interest in computers and computer scientists with an interest in medicine (Gardner et al. 2009).The tradition is rooted in quantitative approaches and came to be strongly influenced by the ideas and values of EBM, with an emphasis on experimental studies; the preferred design is the RCT.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 1: Health Information Systems (HIS)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gardner et al. 2009
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The interpretivist perspective holds that the use, design, and study of information systems are fundamentally a hermeneutic (meaningmaking) process rather than a rationalistic, decision-making process (Boland 1979).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 4: Information Systems (Interpretivist Approaches)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boland 1979
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If these last two views (built, respectively, on an interpretivist and a recursive philosophy) are accepted, it follows that the impact of introducing an EPR cannot be predicted from its essential properties and hence that studies seeking to “determine the (generalizable) impact of technology X on outcome Y” have limited value.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This alignment is achieved (or, at least, attempted) through what is known as “translation,” which involves the four stages of problematization (defining a problem for which the EPR is a solution), interessement (getting others to accept this solution to the problem), enrollment (defining the key roles and practices in the network), and mobilization (engaging others in fulfilling the roles, und”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 8: Actor-Network Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Callon 1986
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Technologyin-practice draws on structuration theory and sees human identity and agency as central to the analysis; it offers a sophisticated theory about what agents “know” (which, crucially, includes internalized social structures).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR User
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“since health care work is personalized, filled with exceptions, and context bound, “the nature of health care work sets natural limits to the possibilities of IT to revolutionize this work” (Berg 2003, p. 337).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berg 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tension between standardization (which helps stabilize the network) and contingency (which reflects and responds to local needs and priorities) can never be resolved; rather, it must be actively and creatively managed-and this gets harder as the network gets bigger.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 9: Systems Approaches to Risk and Integration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Actor-network theory (ANT) is built on a recursive philosophy (Latour 1992).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 8: Actor-Network Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Latour 1992
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“ANT, in contrast, considers agency to be a product of the network rather than something intrinsic to the individual actor, so such things as knowledgeability and motivation are only weakly and indirectly theorized (Mutch 2002).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR User
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mutch 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The EPR is not merely a container for information; it accumulates and transforms work (is “constitutive” of it) and is thus an actor (or “actant”) in the network.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 8: Actor-Network Analyses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Second, the EPR can provide multiple views and framings of the data and thus can tolerate (and perhaps overcome) the ambiguities inherent in interprofessional work and make the work of different professional groups more visible to others (Reddy, Dourish, and Pratt 2001).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reddy, Dourish, and Pratt 2001
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conceptualized from the ANT perspective, EPR projects “fail” when the elements in the network fail to align, that is, when efforts at translation fail.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 8: Actor-Network Analyses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As one seminal paper put it, the EPR's bodies are multiple (Berg and Bowker 1997).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berg and Bowker 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While different language is used in different traditions (“ensemble,” “situated,” “embedded,” “accommodated,” “networked”), these terms share many meanings, and all place greater emphasis on system-level approaches than on interventions aimed at the individual.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR User
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Critical sociology draws on the work on power by feminist scholars and the philosopher Michel Foucault (Schneider 2006;Willcocks 2006).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 7: Critical Sociology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schneider 2006
- Not checked yetcites Willcocks 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critical sociology and ANT studies assume that power relationships are (at least to some extent) built into the structure and data models of the EPR.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The EPR
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because this heterogeneous literature is based on different philosophical assumptions and worldviews, a meaningful synthesis must not merely summate the findings of different meta-narratives but also present the tensions and conflicts among them as higher-order data.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Synthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather than promising that the EPR will “save time” or “make clinical care more efficient,” a more honest message would be that creating accurate and complete clinical records requires the sacrifice of time and effort by frontline clinical and administrative staff but that this is (sometimes) justified by more benefits for efficient business processes (e.g., billing), governance, and research.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 6: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The alternative view is that clinical work is less about decision making than about addressing the ongoing, local question, what to do next?(Garfinkel 1967a)”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Clinical Work and Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garfinkel 1967a
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“In sum, technologies reflect the interests and values of those who produce them.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 7: Critical Sociology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zuboff 1988
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As described in meta-narrative 1, much of the health informatics research tradition has been oriented to designing EPR technologies that will improve patient safety by overcoming fallible human practice.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Meta-narrative 9: Systems Approaches to Risk and Integration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The further information has to be able to circulate (i.e. the more diverse contexts it has to be usable in), the more work is required to disentangle the information from the context of its production.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berg and Goorman 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The UK NPfIT appeared to be built on six assumptions, that the EPR (1) is primarily a container for information about the patient; (2) can be integrated seamlessly and unproblematically into clinical work; (3) will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical work;”
- Also stated in: § Discussion and Recommendations · plain
“(4) will drive changes in how staff interact with the patient and one another; (5) should replace most, if not all, forms of paper record, which are old-fashioned and limited; and (6) the more comprehensive and widely distributed it is, the more value it will add.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion and Recommendations · plain
In the paper
“Taken to its extreme, the logic of determinism is focused on technology and is causalist (technology X will produce output Y, and Y can be measured) and fundamentally linear (it recognizes complicatedness but not complexity) (Plsek and Greenhalgh 2001).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Plsek and Greenhalgh 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It assumes that the human interactions and organizational context in which technology is used will operate on the same formal and predictable technical principles as the technology itself.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our team developed the meta-narrative method in a previous study to synthesize heterogeneous research literature on a complex topic (Greenhalgh et al. 2004(Greenhalgh et al. , 2005)).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > Discussion and Recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greenhalgh et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites Greenhalgh et al. 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this logic is adopted, it follows not merely that the change model will be neither linear nor predictable but also that there will be conflict involved.”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Process of Change
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this rule certainly helps explain numerous unsuccessful largescale EPR initiatives, a more nuanced version of it may now be needed to account for the uncommon examples of successful ones (see metanarrative 1).”
§ Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method > The Impact of Change-And the Definition of Success
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“most of the benefits of current HIT systems accrue to entities upstream from direct patient care processes 72 d hospital administrators, quality improvement professionals, payors, regulators, and the government. 73”
From Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities (2010) · cites this paper as [73]
In the citing paper
“those who suffer the costs of poorly designed and inefficient HIT are front-line providers, clerks, and patients.”
From Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities (2010) · cites this paper as [73]
In the citing paper
“We also see interpretive case-based evaluation as a useful way to avoid inherent pro-innovation bias, typically embedded in before-after evaluations [1,36,77].”
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M. E. F., Lave, J., & Wenger, É. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,362
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769
Gioia, D. A., Mehra, A., & Weick, K. E. (1996) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259169 · Cited by 15,616
Wallace, A. F. C., & Garfinkel, H. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092245 · Cited by 12,413
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
McGuire, J. E. (1963) · Philosophical Books · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1963.tb00813.x · Cited by 8,547
Institutions and organizations
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1848 · Cited by 8,039
Callon, M. (1984) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1984.tb00113.x · Cited by 7,763
Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor‐network‐theory
Turnbull, J. (2008) · New Zealand Geographer · doi:10.1111/j.1745-7939.2008.00151_4.x · Cited by 7,646
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Self-citationNormal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies
Grimes, A. J., & Perrow, C. B. (1985) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257982 · Cited by 4,985
Carayannis, E. G. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_100431 · Cited by 4,819
Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.2.121 · Cited by 3,879
Design and natural science research on information technology
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2 · Cited by 3,871
Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions
Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.1.1 · Cited by 3,526
Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge?
Law, J. R., Fyfe, G., Callon, M., Latour, B., Rayner, S. G., & Douglas, M. (1986) · Routledge eBooks · Cited by 3,524
Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116 · Cited by 3,512
Gummett, P. J. (1988) · Physics Bulletin · doi:10.1088/0031-9112/39/8/019 · Cited by 2,997
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1987) · Cited by 2,957
Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies
Cummings, L. L., & Perrow, C. (1984) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392945 · Cited by 2,861
The challenge of complexity in health care
Plsek, P. E., & Greenhalgh, T. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625 · Cited by 2,578
Self-citationBarley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors
Koppel, R. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1197 · Cited by 2,126
Barley, S. R. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618925.007 · Cited by 2,119
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 · Cited by 2,045 · cited 2×
“We recommend that those unfamiliar with this approach access our methodological paper (Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, Kyriakidou, and Peacock 2005) and consult the glossary in the appendix to this paper.”
Self-citationde Ven, A. H. V. (2007) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199226290.001.0001 · Cited by 1,944
Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research
van de Ven, & Andrew, H. P. (2007) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,932
Ash, J. S. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1471 · Cited by 1,789
HARLEY, J. B. (1989) · Cartographica · doi:10.3138/e635-7827-1757-9t53 · Cited by 1,366
A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation1
Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148692 · Cited by 1,323
Han, Y. Y., Carcillo, J. A., Venkataraman, S. T., Clark, R. S. B., Watson, R. S., Nguyen, T. C., Bayir, H., & Orr, R. A. (2005) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1287 · Cited by 1,149
Cooperstock, J. R. (2009) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470050118.ecse524 · Cited by 1,084
Information, Systems and Information Systems-Making Sense of the Field.
Taket, A. R., Checkland, P. B., & Holwell, S. (1999) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/3010006 · Cited by 1,074
Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluationof organizational interfaces
Grudin, J. (1988) · Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW '88 · doi:10.1145/62266.62273 · Cited by 961
Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization
Roberts, K. H. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.160 · Cited by 935
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001 · Cited by 913
Self-citationThe Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap Between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility
Ackerman, M. S. (2000) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_5 · Cited by 892
Physicians’ Use Of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers And Solutions
Miller, R. H., & Sim, I. (2004) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.116 · Cited by 869
How users matter : The co-construction of users and technologies
Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2003) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 839
Types of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry
Campbell, E. M., Sittig, D. F., Ash, J. S., Guappone, K. P., & Dykstra, R. H. (2006) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2042 · Cited by 823
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (1999) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.10.2.167 · Cited by 765
Bannister, S. J. (2009) · Cited by 749
Health information systems – past, present, future
Haux, R. (2005) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.08.002 · Cited by 739
Making Sense with Institutions: Context, Thought and Action in Karl Weick’s Theory
Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840606068343 · Cited by 721
Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges
Berg, M. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00200-3 · Cited by 715
Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants
Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0583 · Cited by 685
Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of Use
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.6.4.423 · Cited by 682
Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor Network Theory
Bruni, A., & Teli, M. (2007) · Management Learning · doi:10.1177/1350507607073032 · Cited by 678
Actor-Network Theory and IS Research: Current Status and Future Prospects
Walsham, G. (1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35309-8_23 · Cited by 670
Communities Of Practice, Foucault And Actor‐Network Therory
Fox, S. (2000) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00207 · Cited by 656
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511489839 · Cited by 648
Networks of Action: Sustainable Health Information Systems Across Developing Countries1
Braa, J. A., Monteiro, & Sahay, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148643 · Cited by 560
The Extent and Importance of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Poon, E. G., Guappone, K. P., Campbell, E., & Dykstra, R. H. (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2373 · Cited by 511
Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition)
Dix, A. J., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D., & Beale, R. (2003) · Prentice-Hall, Inc eBooks · Cited by 497
Institutions and Organizations
Barzelay, M., & Scott, W. R. (1997) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/591930 · Cited by 497
Developing Health Information Systems in Developing Countries: The Flexible Standards Strategy1
Braa, J. A., Hanseth, O., Heywood, A., Mohammed, & Shaw, V. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148796 · Cited by 466
Cochrane, A. L. (1994) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1017/s000712500007344x · Cited by 441
In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power
Zuboff, S. (1989) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2073307 · Cited by 410
How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology
Krige, J. (2006) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1177/009430610603500121 · Cited by 409
Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards
Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997) · Accounting Management and Information Technologies · doi:10.1016/s0959-8022(97)00008-8 · Cited by 408
Evaluating computerised health information systems: hard lessons still to be learnt
Littlejohns, P., Wyatt, J. C., & Garvican, L. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7394.860 · Cited by 407
The Multiple Bodies of the Medical Record: Toward a Sociology of an Artifact
Berg, M., & Bowker, G. C. (1997) · Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00490.x · Cited by 402
Kaplan, B. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00184-8 · Cited by 380
Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory
Greenhalgh, T., & Stones, R. (2010) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.034 · Cited by 371
Self-citationComputer systems in work design--the ETHICS method
Mumford, E. (1979) · Cited by 339
Currie, W. L., & Guah, M. W. (2007) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000102 · Cited by 338
Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work
Orlikowski, W. J., Walsham, G., Jones, M., & DeGross, J. I. (1996) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34872-8 · Cited by 314
Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system
Doolin, B. (2004) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x · Cited by 299
Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems.
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Campbell, E. M., Guappone, K. P., & Dykstra, R. H. (2007) · PubMed Central · Cited by 298
Mobility Work: The Spatial Dimension of Collaboration at a Hospital
Bardram, J. E., & Bossen, C. (2005) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-005-0989-y · Cited by 274
Mitchell, E. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7281.279 · Cited by 272
Reflexive Standardization: Side Effects and Complexity in Standard Making1
Hanseth, O., Jacucci, E., Grisot, M., & Aanestad, M. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148773 · Cited by 270
Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Dykstra, R. H., Guappone, K., Carpenter, J. D., & Seshadri, V. (2007) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.017 · Cited by 267
Kaiser Permanente's experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study
Scott, J. T., Rundall, T. G., Vogt, T. M., & Hsu, J. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38638.497477.68 · Cited by 266
Prasad, P. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256817 · Cited by 265
The contextual nature of medical information
Berg, M., & Goorman, E. (1999) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(99)00041-6 · Cited by 264
Accumulating and Coordinating: Occasions for Information Technologies in Medical Work
Berg, M. (1999) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1023/a:1008757115404 · Cited by 263
ICT in Health Care: Sociotechnical Approaches
Berg, M., Aarts, J., & van der Lei, J. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634221 · Cited by 261
Østerlund, C. S., & Carlile, P. R. (2005) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972240590925294 · Cited by 260
Technology and social interaction: the emergence of ‘workplace studies’
Heath, C., Knoblauch, H. A., & Luff, P. (2000) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1080/00071310050030190 · Cited by 260
Dix, A. J. (2009) · Encyclopedia of Database Systems · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_192 · Cited by 260
Greenhalgh, T., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., Byrne, E., Mohammad, Y., & Russell, J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1786 · Cited by 257
Self-citationDocuments and professional practice: “bad” organisational reasons for “good” clinical records
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1996) · Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/240080.240342 · Cited by 255
Aarts, J., Doorewaard, H., & Berg, M. (2004) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1372 · Cited by 251
Shadowing Software and Clinical Records: On the Ethnography of Non-Humans and Heterogeneous Contexts
Bruni, A. (2005) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508405051272 · Cited by 234
Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: working on the fringes
Star, S. L. (2002) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 222
Making a Case in Medical Work: Implications for the Electronic Medical Record
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., & Slack, R. (2003) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1023/a:1025055829026 · Cited by 212
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Dykstra, R. H., Campbell, E., & Guappone, K. P. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.015 · Cited by 211
Improving quality through effective implementation of information technology in healthcare
Ovretveit, J., Scott, T., Rundall, T. G., Shortell, S. M., & Brommels, M. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm031 · Cited by 204
Luff, P., Heath, C., & Greatbatch, D. (1992) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/143457.143475 · Cited by 202
Nurses resisting information technology
Timmons, S. (2003) · Nursing Inquiry · doi:10.1046/j.1440-1800.2003.00177.x · Cited by 197
Hendy, J., Reeves, B. C., Fulop, N., Hutchings, A., & Masseria, C. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7512.331 · Cited by 195
Aarts, J., Ash, J. S., & Berg, M. (2006) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.009 · Cited by 192
Core Content for the Subspecialty of Clinical Informatics
Gardner, R. M., Overhage, J. M., Steen, E. B., Munger, B. S., Holmes, J. H., Williamson, J. J., Detmer, D. E., & for the AMIA Board of Directors (2008) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m3045 · Cited by 190
"e-Iatrogenesis": The Most Critical Unintended Consequence of CPOE and other HIT
Weiner, J. P., Kfuri, T., Chan, K., & Fowles, J. B. (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2338 · Cited by 189
Evidence-based medicine and the reconfiguration of medical knowledge.
Timmermans, S., & Kolker, E. S. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 189
Control, causality and information system requirements
Boland, R. J. (1979) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(79)90017-5 · Cited by 188
Berg, M., Langenberg, C. J. M., Berg, I. V. D., & Kwakkernaat, J. (1998) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(98)00143-9 · Cited by 184
Coordinating Heterogeneous Work: Information and Representation in Medical Care
Reddy, M. C., Dourish, P., & Pratt, W. (2005) · Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-306-48019-0_13 · Cited by 184
Darbyshire, P. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00823.x · Cited by 183
Incorporating ideas from computer-supported cooperative work
Pratt, W., Reddy, M. C., McDonald, D. W., Tarczy-Hornoch, P. Z., & Gennari, J. H. (2004) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2004.04.001 · Cited by 181
Orders and Their Others: On the Constitution of Universalities in Medical Work
Berg, M., & Timmermans, S. (2000) · Configurations · doi:10.1353/con.2000.0001 · Cited by 176
Actors and Networks or Agents and Structures: Towards a Realist View of Information Systems
Mutch, A. (2002) · Organization · doi:10.1177/135050840293013 · Cited by 173
Chiasson, M. W., Reddy, M. C., Kaplan, B., & Davidson, E. (2006) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.010 · Cited by 164
How do desk-top computers affect the doctor-patient interaction
Greatbatch, D., Heath, C., Campion, P. D., & Luff, P. (1995) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/12.1.32 · Cited by 160
Of Forms, Containers, and the Electronic Medical Record: Some Tools for a Sociology of the Formal
Berg, M. (1997) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/016224399702200401 · Cited by 159
Doomed to Failure: Narratives of Inevitability and Conspiracy in a Failed IS Project
Brown, A. D., & Jones, M. (1998) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069801900104 · Cited by 150
Southon, F. C. G., Sauer, C., & Dampney, C. N. G. (1997) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1997.0040112 · Cited by 150
Technology and medical practice
Heath, C., Luff, P., & Svensson, M. (2003) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00341 · Cited by 148
The coordination of work activities: Cooperation and conflict in a hospital context
Symon, G., Long, K., & Ellis, J. (1996) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/bf00141934 · Cited by 148
Tamuz, M., & Harrison, M. I. (2006) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00570.x · Cited by 146
Time to rethink health care and ICT?
Avison, D., & Young, T. P. (2007) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1247001.1247008 · Cited by 141
Medical Work and the ComputerBased Patient Record: A Sociological Perspective
Berg, M. (1998) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634535 · Cited by 138
Why Health Care Information Systems Succeed or FailPreprint
Heeks, R., Mundy, D., & Salazar, A. J. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3540062 · Cited by 136
A Patchwork Planet Integration and Cooperation in Hospitals
Ellingsen, G., & Monteiro, E. (2003) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1023/a:1022469522932 · Cited by 131
Davidson, E., & Heslinga, D. (2006) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530601036786 · Cited by 130
Davidson, E., & Chiasson, M. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000518 · Cited by 125
Hospitality and hostility in hospitals: a case study of an EPR adoption among surgeons
Jensen, T. B., & Aanestad, M. (2007) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000713 · Cited by 124
A critical approach to evaluation
Klecuń, E., & Cornford, T. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000540 · Cited by 120
Crossing the Implementation Chasm: A Proposal for Bold Action
Lorenzi, N. M., Novak, L. L., Weiss, J. B., Gadd, C. S., & Unertl, K. M. (2008) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2583 · Cited by 119
Co-realisation : towards a principled synthesis of ethnomethodology and participatory design
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Slack, R., Voß, A., Büscher, M., Rouncefield, M., & Rouchy, P. (2002) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · doi:10.82444/warw.33682591 · Cited by 119
Thralls, C. (2007) · Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. eBooks · doi:10.2190/cpi · Cited by 119
Technology and social interaction: the emergence of ‘workplace studies’
Heath, C., Knoblauch, H. A., & Luff, P. (2000) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00299.x · Cited by 117
Agencies in Technology Design: Feminist Reconfigurations*
Suchman, L. (2020) · Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics · doi:10.4324/9781003074991-32 · Cited by 115
Modelling nursing activities: electronic patient records and their discontents
Goorman, E., & Berg, M. (2000) · Nursing Inquiry · doi:10.1046/j.1440-1800.2000.00053.x · Cited by 114
(2007) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781847207005 · Cited by 107
Local Sociotechnical System Development in the NHS National Programme for Information Technology
Eason, K. (2007) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000101 · Cited by 101
Advancing Evidence-Based Care For Diabetes: Lessons From The Veterans Health Administration
Kupersmith, J., Francis, J., Kerr, E. A., Krein, S. L., POGACH, L. M., Kolodner, R. M., & Perlin, J. B. (2007) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w156 · Cited by 99
The Use of Computers for Clinical Care: A Case Series of Advanced U.S. Sites
Doolan, D., Bates, D. W., & James, B. C. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1127 · Cited by 99
Campbell, E. M., Sittig, D. F., Guappone, K. P., Dykstra, R. H., & Ash, J. S. (2007) · PubMed Central · Cited by 83
Edwards, J. H. (2008) · Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics · doi:10.1159/000131685 · Cited by 81
Wainwright, D. W., & Waring, T. (2007) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000093 · Cited by 80
Implementing the NHS information technology programme: qualitative study of progress in acute trusts
Hendy, J., Fulop, N., Reeves, B. C., Hutchings, A., & Collin, S. M. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39195.598461.551 · Cited by 77
Implementation of electronic medical records in hospitals: two case studies
Øvretveit, J., Scott, T., Rundall, T. G., Shortell, S. M., & Brommels, M. (2007) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.013 · Cited by 76
Women's voice: The case of nursing information systems
Wagner, I. (1993) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/bf01891413 · Cited by 76
Bloomfield, B. P. (1995) · Organization · doi:10.1177/135050849523012 · Cited by 76
Seamless Integration: Standardisation across Multiple Local Settings
Ellingsen, G., & Monteiro, E. (2006) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-006-9033-0 · Cited by 73
Fluids or flows? Information and qualculation in medical practice
Moser, I., & Law, J. (2006) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/09593840610649961 · Cited by 71
A failed panopticon: surveillance of nursing practice via new technology
Timmons, S. (2003) · New Technology Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/1468-005x.00116 · Cited by 71
Toward an Informatics Research Agenda: Key People and Organizational Issues
Kaplan, B., Brennan, P. F., Dowling, A. F., Friedman, C. P., & Peel, V. (2001) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2001.0080235 · Cited by 70
Car, J., Black, A. D., Anandan, C., Cresswell, K. M., Pagliari, C., Mckinstry, B., Procter, R., Majeed, A., & Sheikh, A. (2008) · Cited by 66
Changing irreversible networks.
Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1998) · European Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 66
Winthereik, B. R., van der Ploeg, I., & Berg, M. (2007) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243906293884 · Cited by 64
Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs
Willcocks, L. P. (2006) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439306287973 · Cited by 63
The influence of context and process when implementing e-health
Boddy, D., King, G., Clark, J. S., Heaney, D., & Mair, F. S. (2009) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-9-9 · Cited by 61
Nemeth, L. S., Feifer, C., Stuart, G. W., & Ornstein, S. M. (2008) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-3 · Cited by 60
The Biggest Computer Programme in the World Ever! How's it Going?
Brennan, S. (2007) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000104 · Cited by 60
The Search for Synergy: Interrelating Medical Work and Patient Care Information Systems
Berg, M. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634227 · Cited by 59
Work Practices Surrounding PACS: The Politics of Space in Hospitals
Tellioğlu, H., & Wagner, I. (2001) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1023/a:1011298824442 · Cited by 59
Constantinides, P., & Barrett, M. (2006) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886305284291 · Cited by 59
The Computer Based Patient Record: A Strategic Issue in Process Innovation
Sicotte, C., Denis, J., & Lehoux, P. (1998) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1020674527409 · Cited by 57
Analyzing genre of organizational communication in clinical information systems
Davidson, E. (2000) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593840010377635 · Cited by 57
Detmer, D. E. (2000) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qhc.9.3.181 · Cited by 57
Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886305285130 · Cited by 57
Constructing the ‘Dossier Représentatif’
Schneider, K., & Wagner, I. (1992) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/bf00754329 · Cited by 56
The Computer-Based Patient Record Challenges Towards Timeless and Spaceless Medical Practice
Sicotte, C., Denis, J., Lehoux, P., & Champagne, F. (1998) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1022661701101 · Cited by 55
Chiasson, M. W., & Dexter, A. S. (2001) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593840110384799 · Cited by 54
(2006) · PubMed Central · Cited by 53
Integrating Health Information Systems: A Critical Appraisal
Monteiro, E. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634241 · Cited by 48
Safdar, N., Abad, C. L. R., Kaul, D. R., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcps0706711 · Cited by 48
Mechanisms for producing a working knowledge: Enacting, orchestrating and organizing
Ellingsen, G., & Monteiro, E. (2003) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/s1471-7727(03)00011-3 · Cited by 47
Big is Beautiful: Electronic Patient Records in Large Norwegian Hospitals 1980s – 2001
Ellingsen, G., & Monteiro, E. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634231 · Cited by 45
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Saarelma, O. (1988) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/62266.62272 · Cited by 40
Winthereik, B. R. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634244 · Cited by 40
IS Success and Failure—The Problem of Scale
Kreps, D., & Richardson, H. (2007) · The Political Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1467-923x.2007.00871.x · Cited by 39
Working IT Out in Medical Practice: IT Systems Design and Development as Co-Realisation
Hartswood, M. J., Rouchy, P., Rouncefield, M., Slack, R., Voss, A., & Procter, R. N. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634235 · Cited by 39
Jones, M. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 38
Harris, B. L. (1990) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-199012000-00008 · Cited by 38
Adoption and perception of electronic clinical communications in Scotland
Pagliari, C., Donnan, P. T., Morrison, J., Ricketts, I. W., Gregor, P., & Sullivan, F. (2005) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v13i2.586 · Cited by 37
Pirnejad, H., Bal, R. A., Stoop, A. P., & Berg, M. (2007) · International Journal of Integrated Care · doi:10.5334/ijic.185 · Cited by 35
Ellingsen, G., & Munkvold, G. (2007) · International Journal of Integrated Care · doi:10.5334/ijic.190 · Cited by 34
Fictional‐critical writing: an approach to case study research by practitioners
Winter, R. (1986) · Cambridge Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/0305764860160303 · Cited by 34
Design guidelines for dealing with breakdowns and repairs in collaborative work settings
Hartswood, M., & Procter, R. (2000) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0374 · Cited by 33
Exploring the unintended consequences of computerized physician order entry.
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Dykstra, R. H., Campbell, E. M., & Guappone, K. P. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 32
How Stakeholder Analysis can be Mobilized with Actor-Network Theory to Identify Actors
Pouloudi, A., Gandecha, R., Atkinson, C., et al. (2004) · IFIP International Federation for Information Processing/IFIP · doi:10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_48 · Cited by 31
Pagliari, C., Gilmour, M., & Sullivan, F. (2004) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2004.00475.x · Cited by 27
Jones, M. R. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634238 · Cited by 27
Mapping Medical Work: Documenting practices across multiple medical settings
Østerlund, C. S. (2004) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 26
A Camel Going Through the Eye of a Needle
Saunders, C., & Benbasat, I. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 26
Stead, W. W., & Hammond, W. E. (1983) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/bf00993282 · Cited by 26
Jos, A., & Berg, M. (2004) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-949-3-999 · Cited by 24
Nursing Information: The Electronic Patient Record
Strachan, H. (2003) · Research and theory for nursing practice · doi:10.1891/rtnp.17.2.93.53175 · Cited by 24
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS IN IMPLEMENTING ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS IN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF RENNES
de la Rosa, J. L. S., Savin, S., & Vasileva, V. (2005) · Cited by 24
Implementation of an IT System in a Hospital Trust
Currie, G., & Brown, A. D. (1997) · Public Money & Management · doi:10.1111/1467-9302.00093 · Cited by 23
Implementing the National Programme for IT: what can we learn from the Scottish experience?
Pagliari, C. (2005) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v13i2.587 · Cited by 23
Madness and Organization: Informed Management and Empowerment
Bloomfield, B. P., & McLean, C. (1996) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34872-8_22 · Cited by 23
Henwood, F., & Hart, A. (2003) · Critical Social Policy · doi:10.1177/0261018303023002007 · Cited by 22
Introduction: Integration–Complexity–Risk – The Making of Information Systems Out-of-Control
Hanseth, O. (2007) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781847207005.00005 · Cited by 20
Stoop, A. P., Bal, R. A., & Berg, M. (2006) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.023 · Cited by 19
Sharman, Z. (2006) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.012 · Cited by 19
Obstfelder, A. U., & Moen, A. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 19
Clarke, K., Hartswood, M., Procter, R. N., et al. (2003) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634228 · Cited by 19
Ellingsen, G. (2003) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 18
Ellingsen, G., & Obstfelder, A. U. (2006) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.029 · Cited by 18
Lessons from a Dinosaur: Mediating is Research Through an Analysis of the Medical Record
Berg, M. (2000) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35505-4_28 · Cited by 17
The electronic medical record and everyday medical work
Clarke, K. M., Hartswood, M., Procter, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2001) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/146045820100700310 · Cited by 17
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Aderibigbe A. L.Brooks andK.McGrath.2007.Electronic Patient Records and Nurses’ Work: Rhetoric and Reality.Paper presented at fifth Critical Management Studies conference Manchester Business School July 11–13 2007 Manchester. Available athttp://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/2007/proceedings/criticalthinking/mcgrath.pdf(accessed September 29 2009).
- Berg M., 2000, Proceedings of the IFIP Working Group 8.2 Conference, 487
- Davidson E. andJ.Reardon.2005.Organizing Visions for IT Healthcare: Analysis of Discourse Surrounding Electronic Health Records.Paper presented at Academy of Management Conference August 9 Honolulu .
- Department of Health, 2008, The NHS Informatics Review Report
- Desjardins G.A., 2006, La résistance des utilisateurs face aux TI: Un processus de “sensemaking
- Eason K., 2009, A Case Study of Local Socio‐technical Systems Design within the NPfIT Programme
- Garfinkel H., 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology
- Institute of Medicine, 2009, Health and Human Sciences in the 21st Century: Charting a New Course for a Healthier America
- Jaeger J.F., 2005, Proceedings of Continuity of Care, HelsIT
- 10.2307/256817 · DOI
- Rodriguez C., 2006, APROS 11: Asia‐Pacific Researchers in Organisation Studies, Eleventh International Colloquium, 306
- Shekelle P.G., 2009, Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology: An Updated Systematic Review
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of eHealth on the Quality and Safety of Health Care: A Systematic Overview
Black, A. D., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Anandan, C., Cresswell, K., Bokun, T., McKinstry, B., Procter, R., Majeed, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387 · Cited by 1,442
“An additional 55 supplementary reviews provided context to the findings [68–122], aiding in their interpretation [123].”
BackgroundPluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 · Cited by 1,363
Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool
Fugard, A. J. B., & POTTS, H. W. W. (2015) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453 · Cited by 778
Self-citationRAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-20 · Cited by 610
“” [17]”
Self-citationA Review of 25 Years of CSCW Research in Healthcare: Contributions, Challenges and Future Agendas
Fitzpatrick, G., & Ellingsen, G. (2012) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-012-9168-0 · Cited by 439
“These can be especially useful for secondary purposes such as management, strategic planning, accountability and epidemiological research (Berg 1999; Greenhalgh et al. 2009; Hardstone et al. 2004) however the primary delivery of patient care can be impacted because of the disparity between formal…”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- GREENHALGH, T., POTTS, H. W. W., WONG, G., BARK, P., & SWINGLEHURST, D.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- GREENHALGH, TRISHA
- Venue
- The Milbank Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 729-788
- ISSN
- 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0009
- PMC
- PMC2888022
- OpenAlex
- W2134384563
- Cited by
- 541
- References
- 223
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 36
- FWCI
- 5.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (RDA/03/07/076, CFHEP 007, CFHEP 002)
- Medical Research Council
- Service Delivery and Organisation Programme
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Keywords
- electronic health records, health information technology, clinical decision-making, situated practice, sociotechnical networks, organizational context, implementation success, system size, paper records, research paradigms
- MeSH terms
- Diffusion of Innovation, England, Health Services Research, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Risk Factors, MEDLINE, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Access to Information
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
