Healthc Inform Res.  2024 Jan;30(1):16-34. 10.4258/hir.2024.30.1.16.

Review of Qualitative Research Methods in Health Information System Studies

• Park K
• Moon W

• KMID: 2551857
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2024.30.1.16

Abstract

Objectives
The aim of this study was to review hospital-based health information system (HIS) studies that used qualitative research methods and evaluate their methodological contexts and implications. In addition, we propose practical guidelines for HIS researchers who plan to use qualitative research methods.
Methods
We collected papers published from 2012 to 2022 by searching the PubMed and CINAHL databases. As search keywords, we used specific system terms related to HISs, such as “electronic medical records” and “clinical decision support systems,” linked with their operational terms, such as “implementation” and “adaptation,” and qualitative methodological terms such as “observation” and “in-depth interview.” We finally selected 74 studies that met this review’s inclusion criteria and conducted an analytical review of the selected studies.
Results
We analyzed the selected articles according to the following four points: the general characteristics of the selected articles; research design; participant sampling, identification, and recruitment; and data collection, processing, and analysis. This review found methodologically problematic issues regarding researchers’ reflections, participant sampling methods and research accessibility, and data management.
Conclusions
Reports on the qualitative research process should include descriptions of researchers’ reflections and ethical considerations, which are meaningful for strengthening the rigor and credibility of qualitative research. Based on these discussions, we suggest guidance for conducting ethical, feasible, and reliable qualitative research on HISs in hospital settings.

Keyword

Hospitals, Health Information Systems, Qualitative Research, Research Methodology, Research Ethics

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Flow diagram of study selection. EMR: electronic medical record, EHR: electronic health record, HIS: health information system, CDSS: clinical decision support system, CPOE: computerized physician order entry.

Reference

References

1. Haux R. Health information systems: past, present, future. Int J Med Inform. 2006; 75(3–4):268–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.08.002.

2. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144(10):742–52. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125.

3. Campanella P, Lovato E, Marone C, Fallacara L, Mancuso A, Ricciardi W, et al. The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health. 2016; 26(1):60–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv122.

4. Ammenwerth E, Graber S, Herrmann G, Burkle T, Konig J. Evaluation of health information systems-problems and challenges. Int J Med Inform. 2003; 71(2–3):125–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1386-5056(03)00131-x.

5. Carayon P. Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Appl Ergon. 2006; 37(4):525–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.011.

6. Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004; 11(2):104–12. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1471.

7. Novak LL, Holden RJ, Anders SH, Hong JY, Karsh BT. Using a sociotechnical framework to understand adaptations in health IT implementation. Int J Med Inform. 2013; 82(12):e331–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.01.009.

8. Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP, Hoonakker P, Hundt AS, Ozok AA, et al. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics. 2013; 56(11):1669–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.838643.

9. Yen PY, Bakken S. Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012; 19(3):413–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020.

10. Anderson JG, Aydin CE. Evaluating the organizational impact of healthcare information systems. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Springer;2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30329-4.

11. Kaplan B, Maxwell JA. Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. Anderson JG, Aydin CE, editors. Evaluating the organizational impact of healthcare information systems. New York (NY): Springer;2005. p. 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30329-4_2.

12. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications;1994.

13. Myers MD, Avison D. Qualitative research in information systems: a reader. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications;2002.

14. Doyle S. Reflexivity and the capacity to think. Qual Health Res. 2013; 23(2):248–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312467854.

15. Bidwell S, Jensen MF. Using a search protocol to identify sources of information: the COSI model [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): US National Library of Medicine;2003. [cited 2024 Jan 20]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20060905/nichsr/ehta/chapter3.html#1.

16. Wilczynski NL, Marks S, Haynes RB. Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL. Qual Health Res. 2007; 17(5):705–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306294515.

17. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014; 89(9):1245–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.

18. Layman EJ. Ethical issues and the electronic health record. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2020; 39(4):150–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0000000000000302.

19. Mulhall A. In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2003; 41(3):306–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02514.x.

20. Franklin P, Rowland E, Fox R, Nicolson P. Research ethics in accessing hospital staff and securing informed consent. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(12):1727–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312460765.

21. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015; 42(5):533–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.

22. Campbell S, Greenwood M, Prior S, Shearer T, Walkem K, Young S, et al. Purposive sampling: complex or simple?: research case examples. J Res Nurs. 2020; 25(8):652–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206.

23. Coghlan D, Casey M. Action research from the inside: issues and challenges in doing action research in your own hospital. J Adv Nurs. 2001; 35(5):674–82. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01899.x.

24. Hay-Smith EJ, Brown M, Anderson L, Treharne GJ. Once a clinician, always a clinician: a systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16:95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0203-6.

25. Fernandez-Aleman JL, Senor IC, Lozoya PA, Toval A. Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2013; 46(3):541–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2012.12.003.

26. Ruotsalainen P, Blobel B. Health information systems in the digital health ecosystem-problems and solutions for ethics, trust and privacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3006. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093006.

27. Mireku KK, Zhang F, Komlan G. Patient knowledge and data privacy in healthcare records system. In : Proceedings of 2017 2nd International Conference on Communication Systems, Computing and IT Applications (CSCI-TA); 2017 Apr 7–8; Mumbai, India. p. 154–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCITA.2017.8066543.