Cited by 343Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace

Open access
Greenhalgh, T., Hinder, S., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., Russell, J.·2010·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the policy making process, implementation by NHS organisations, and patients' and carers' experiences of efforts to introduce an internet accessible personal electronic health record (HealthSpace) in a public sector healthcare system. DESIGN: Mixed method, multilevel case study. SETTING: English National Health Service; the basic HealthSpace technology (available throughout England) and the advanced version (available in a few localities where this option had been introduced) were considered. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: National statistics on invitations sent, HealthSpace accounts created, and interviews and ethnographic observation of patients and carers. Data analysis was informed by a socio-technical approach which considered macro and micro influences on both adoption and non-adoption of innovations, and by the principles of critical discourse analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 56 patients and carers (of whom 21 opened a basic HealthSpace account, 20 had diabetes but were not initially using HealthSpace, and 15 used advanced HealthSpace accounts to exchange messages with their general practitioner), 3000 pages of documents (policies, strategies, business plans, minutes of meetings, correspondence), observational field notes, and 160 interviews with policy makers, project managers, and clinical staff. RESULTS: Between 2007 and October 2010, 172 950 people opened a basic HealthSpace account. 2913 (0.13% of those invited) opened an advanced account, compared with 5-10% of the population anticipated in the original business case. Overall, patients perceived HealthSpace as neither useful nor easy to use and its functionality aligned poorly with their expectations and self management practices. Those who used email-style messaging were positive about its benefits, but enthusiasm beyond three early adopter clinicians was low, and fewer than 100 of 30 000 patients expressed interest. Policy makers' hopes that "deploying" HealthSpace would lead to empowered patients, personalised care, lower NHS costs, better data quality, and improved health literacy were not realised over the three year evaluation period. CONCLUSION: Unless personal electronic health records align closely with people's attitudes, self management practices, identified information needs, and the wider care package (including organisational routines and incentive structures for clinicians), the risk that they will be abandoned or not adopted at all is substantial. Conceptualising such records dynamically (as components of a socio-technical network) rather than statically (as containers for data) and employing user centred design techniques might improve their chances of adoption and use. The findings raise questions about how eHealth programmes in England are developed and approved at policy level.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.c5814

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]Darzi A. NHS next stage review: our vision for primary and community care. Stationery Office, 2008.
  2. [13]Gamble KH. Is it registering? Patient portals, part II. Healthc Inform 2009; 26: 24,26,28. 19514236
  3. [21]Simborg DW. Consumer empowerment versus consumer populism in healthcare IT. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 370-2. 20595301 10.1136/jamia.2010.003392 PMC2995650 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenhalgh, T., Hinder, S., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., & Russell, J.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Greenhalgh, T.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-11-16
Volume
341
Issue
nov16 1
Pages
c5814-c5814
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2053939792
Cited by
343
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 21
FWCI
40.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
technology adoption, non-adoption, patient and caregiver experiences, socio-technical approach, patient empowerment, self-management, user-centered design, patient-clinician communication, health information needs, health literacy, critical discourse analysis, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
England, Health Policy, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Participation, Software, State Medicine, Internet, Electronic Mail, Electronic Health Records

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.

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