Factors Influencing the Adoption of Health Information Standards in Health Care Organizations: A Systematic Review Based on Best Fit Framework Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the early 1970s, health care provision has experienced rapid growth in the investment and adoption of health information technologies (HITs). However, the development and deployment of HITs has often been conducted in silos, at different organizational levels, within different regions, and in various health care settings; this has resulted in their infrastructures often being difficult to manage or integrate. Health information standards (ie, the set norms and requirements that underpin the deployment of HITs in health care settings) are expected to address these issues, yet their adoption remains to be frustratingly low among health care information technology vendors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to synthesize a comprehensive framework of factors that affect the adoption and deployment of health information standards by health care organizations. METHODS: First, electronic databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, were searched for relevant articles, with the results being exported to the EndNote reference management software. Second, study selection was conducted according to pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, a synthesized best fit framework was created, which integrated a thematic analysis of the included articles. RESULTS: In total, 35 records were incorporated into the synthesized framework, with 4 dimensions being identified: technology, organization, environment, and interorganizational relationships. The technology dimension included relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, trialability, observability, switching cost, standards uncertainty, and shared business process attributes. The organization dimension included organizational scale, organizational culture, staff resistance to change, staff training, top management support, and organizational readiness. The environment dimension included external pressure, external support, network externality, installed base, and information communication. Finally, the interorganizational relationships dimension included partner trust, partner dependence, relationship commitment, and partner power. CONCLUSIONS: The synthesized framework presented in this paper extends the current understanding of the factors that influence the adoption of health information standards in health care organizations. It provides policy and decision makers with a greater awareness of factors that hinder or facilitate their adoption, enabling better judgement and development of adoption intervention strategies. Furthermore, suggestions for future research are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".