Cited by 270Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study

Open access
Murray, Elizabeth, Burns, Joanne, May, Carl, Finch, Tracy, O'Donnell, Catherine, Wallace, Paul, Mair, Frances·2011·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of information and communication technologies in healthcare is seen as essential for high quality and cost-effective healthcare. However, implementation of e-health initiatives has often been problematic, with many failing to demonstrate predicted benefits. This study aimed to explore and understand the experiences of implementers -- the senior managers and other staff charged with implementing e-health initiatives and their assessment of factors which promote or inhibit the successful implementation, embedding, and integration of e-health initiatives. METHODS: We used a case study methodology, using semi-structured interviews with implementers for data collection. Case studies were selected to provide a range of healthcare contexts (primary, secondary, community care), e-health initiatives, and degrees of normalization. The initiatives studied were Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) in secondary care, a Community Nurse Information System (CNIS) in community care, and Choose and Book (C&B) across the primary-secondary care interface. Implementers were selected to provide a range of seniority, including chief executive officers, middle managers, and staff with 'on the ground' experience. Interview data were analyzed using a framework derived from Normalization Process Theory (NPT). RESULTS: Twenty-three interviews were completed across the three case studies. There were wide differences in experiences of implementation and embedding across these case studies; these differences were well explained by collective action components of NPT. New technology was most likely to 'normalize' where implementers perceived that it had a positive impact on interactions between professionals and patients and between different professional groups, and fit well with the organisational goals and skill sets of existing staff. However, where implementers perceived problems in one or more of these areas, they also perceived a lower level of normalization. CONCLUSIONS: Implementers had rich understandings of barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of e-health initiatives, and their views should continue to be sought in future research. NPT can be used to explain observed variations in implementation processes, and may be useful in drawing planners' attention to potential problems with a view to addressing them during implementation planning.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-6-6

Cites

51 of 51 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murray, E., Burns, J., May, C., Finch, T., O'Donnell, C., Wallace, P., & Mair, F.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • London South Bank University (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Murray, Elizabeth
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2011-01-19
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
6-6
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102259090
Cited by
270
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
FWCI
30.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
eHealth implementation, implementation barriers and facilitators, business executives, Normalization Process Theory, PACS, primary-secondary care interface, organizational change, health information technology
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Choice Behavior, Community Health Nursing, Data Collection, Diffusion of Innovation, United Kingdom, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Medical Informatics Applications, Models, Theoretical, Primary Health Care, Radiology Information Systems, Referral and Consultation, Organizational Case Studies, Qualitative Research

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