Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review
Frances S Mair, Carl May, Catherine O’Donnell, Tracy Finch, Frank Sullivan & Elizabeth Murray
Volume 90, Number 5, May 2012, 357-364
Table 1. Normalization process theory coding framework used for qualitative analysis of review data on e-health implementation
| Coherence (Sense-making work) |
Cognitive participation (Relationship work) |
Collective action (Enacting work) |
Reflexive monitoring (Appraisal work) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Differentiation Is there a clear understanding of how a new e-health service differs from existing practice? |
Enrolment Do individuals “buy into” the idea of the e-health service? |
Skill set workability How does the innovation affect roles and responsibilities or training needs? |
Reconfiguration Do individuals try to alter the new service? |
| Communal specification Do individuals have a shared understanding of the aims, objectives and expected benefits of the e-health service? |
Activation Can individuals sustain involvement? |
Contextual Integration Is there organizational support? |
Communal appraisal How do groups judge the value of the e-health service? |
| Individual specification Do individuals have a clear understanding of their specific tasks and responsibilities in the implementation of an e-health service? |
Initiation Are key individuals willing to drive the implementation? |
Interactional workability Does the e-health service make people’s work easier? |
Individual appraisal How do individuals appraise the effects on them and their work environment? |
| Internalization Do individuals understand the value, benefits and importance of the e-health service? |
Legitimation Do individuals believe it is right for them to be involved? |
Relational integration Do individuals have confidence in the new system? |
Systematization How are benefits or problems identified or measured? |