The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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
“For example, attempts to introduce shareable electronic records by first encouraging patients to enroll, and then hoping that health care providers and organisations will follow, have failed due to resistance of clinicians and healthcare organisations [27, 28].”
From Transitioning a home telehealth project into a sustainable, large-scale service: a qualitative study (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Additionally, these findings suggest the need for closer proximity between innovation design and evaluation, so that critical insights might usefully feed back into design and implementation [11,13] ensuring interventions are ‘minimally disruptive’ for recipients [42].”
From Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study (2012) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“Previous studies have described the challenges brought by the new ‘work’ and scrutiny associated with such interventions [12,38,39] and where the disruption of normalised everyday practices and interactions regarding management have been recognised a major barrier to the integration of e-health interventions into routine care and management [13,40,41].”
From Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study (2012) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“However, the existing evidence mainly relates to organizational readiness within the health service [17,18] or the readiness of health professionals [19-21], patients or carers for a specific single digital health service [22].”
In the citing paper
“Previous research relating to the use of personal electronic health records has demonstrated less public and professional appetite than anticipated [22,44].”
In the citing paper
“Information and communication technology (ICT) programmes in health care fail partly because people do not use the technologies.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
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-citationA Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis
Glaser, B. G. (1965) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/798843 · Cited by 4,937
Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness
Bodenheimer, T. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1775 · Cited by 2,961
Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography
Roufs, T. G., & Maanen, J. V. (1992) · The American Indian Quarterly · doi:10.2307/1185464 · Cited by 2,607
Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness: The Chronic Care Model, Part 2
Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E. H., & Grumbach, K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.15.1909 · Cited by 2,413
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20786060 · Cited by 1,973
Discourse: A Critical Introduction.
Blommaert, J. (2008) · Linguistische Berichte (LB) · doi:10.46771/2366077500214_7 · Cited by 1,525
Tales of the field: on writing ethnography
(1988) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.26-1597 · Cited by 1,394
Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View.
Wanless, D. (2002) · Cited by 917
How users matter : The co-construction of users and technologies
Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2003) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 839
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
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-citationThe Kaiser Permanente Electronic Health Record: Transforming And Streamlining Modalities Of Care
Chen, C., Garrido, T., Chock, D., Okawa, G., & Liang, L. (2009) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.323 · Cited by 300
Greenhalgh, T., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., Byrne, E., Russell, J., & Potts, H. W. W. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c3111 · Cited by 275
Self-citationHarrison, S., & Mort, M. (1998) · Social Policy and Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-9515.00086 · Cited by 249
Zhou, Y. Y., Garrido, T., Chin, H. L., Wiesenthal, A. M., & Liang, L. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 207
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
Patients’ attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study
Greenhalgh, T., Wood, G. W., Bratan, T., Stramer, K., & Hinder, S. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a114 · Cited by 141
If You Build It, Will They Come? The Kaiser Permanente Model Of Online Health Care
Silvestre, A.-L., Sue, V. M., & Allen, J. Y. (2009) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.334 · Cited by 140
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
Weitzman, E. R., Kaci, L., & Mandl, K. D. (2009) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1187 · Cited by 117
Greenhalgh, T., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., Byrne, E., Russell, J., Hinder, S., & POTTS, H. W. W. (2010) · Cited by 83
Self-citationUnderwood, F., Garrett, D., Barker, W., Waddell, B., Lloyd, C., & Jerram, S. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 81
Guardian Angel: Patient-Centered Health Information Systems
Peter Szolovits, B., Doyle, J., Long, W. J., Kohane, I. S., & Pauker, S. G. (1994) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 79
Wynia, M., & Dunn, K. (2010) · Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics · doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2010.00467.x · Cited by 72
Electronic cigarettes: miracle or menace?
Flouris, A. D., & Oikonomou, D. N. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c311 · Cited by 68
USB-based Personal Health Records: An analysis of features and functionality
Maloney, F. L., & Wright, A. T. (2010) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.11.005 · Cited by 54
Lewis, D. L., & Friedman, C. P. (2000) · Computers in health care · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3252-8_24 · Cited by 54
Cayton, H. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.06.016 · Cited by 53
Pandora's electronic box: GPs reflect upon email communication with their patients
Goodyear‐Smith, F., Wearn, A. M., Everts, H., Huggard, P., & Halliwell, J. (2005) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v13i3.597 · Cited by 49
Alhajj, R., & Rokne, J. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_100243 · Cited by 39
‘Never heard of it’– understanding the public’s lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record
Bratan, T., Stramer, K., & Greenhalgh, T. (2010) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x · Cited by 34
Self-citationA survey of GP attitudes to and experiences of email consultations
Neville, R. G., Marsden, W., McCowan, C., Pagliari, C., Mullen, H., & Allison, F. (2004) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v12i4.127 · Cited by 31
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
Consumer empowerment versus consumer populism in healthcare IT
Simborg, D. W. (2010) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.003392 · Cited by 16
Nelson, J. A. E. (2008) · Home Health Care Management & Practice · doi:10.1177/1084822308325428 · Cited by 15
Mandl, K. D., Peter Szolovits, B., & Kohane, I. S. (2001) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 11
Fetter, M. S. (2009) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840902722161 · Cited by 10
Is it registering? Patient portals, part II (see Financial Department for part I).
Gamble, K. H. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 8
Personal electronic health records: from biomedical research to people's health.
Roberts, J. M. (2009) · Informatics In Primary Care · doi:10.14236/jhi.v17i4.745 · Cited by 7
Gamble, K. H. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 7
Keeping tabs. How personal health records are changing the face of healthcare.
Marshall, P. D. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 5
Email consultations in health care: Patients need to be given a choice
Charnock, J. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1046-b · Cited by 5
(2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_100537 · Cited by 5
The empowered patient. Preparing for a new patient interaction.
Dimick, C. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 4
Dispute resolution. Planning for disputed information in EHRs and PHRs.
Washington, L., Katsh, E., & Sondheimer, N. K. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 3
Footing the bill: patient portals, part I.
Lawrence, D. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 3
Personal medical devices. Managing personal data, personally collected.
Eramo, L. A. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 2
Email consultations in health care: Set your auto reply to “no”
Wong, G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1046-a · Cited by 1
Rollins, G. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 1
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
- [2]Darzi A. NHS next stage review: our vision for primary and community care. Stationery Office, 2008.
- [13]Gamble KH. Is it registering? Patient portals, part II. Healthc Inform 2009; 26: 24,26,28. 19514236
- [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
American Academy of Family Physicians
(1966) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm196611172752014 · Cited by 1,947
Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future
Evans, R. S. (2016) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.15265/iys-2016-s006 · Cited by 816
O’Connor, S., Hanlon, P., O’Donnell, C. A., Garcia, S., Glanville, J., & Mair, F. S. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3 · Cited by 636
Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review
Irizarry, T., DeVito Dabbs, A., & Curran, C. R. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4255 · Cited by 732
Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review.
Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Señor, I. C., Lozoya, P. Á. O., & Toval, A. (2013) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2012.12.003 · Cited by 675
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC2982892
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › 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
