Yusif Salifu, Hafeez-Baig Abdul, Soar Jeffrey
BELA, School of Management Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Campus, QLD, 4300, Australia.
School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia.
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Nov;107:56-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.08.006. Epub 2017 Aug 25.
The evolving, adoption and high failure nature of health information technology (HIT)/IS/T systems requires effective readiness assessment to avert increasing failures while increasing system benefits. However, literature on HIT readiness assessment is myriad and fragmented. This review bares the contours of the available literature concluding in a set of manageable and usable recommendations for policymakers, researchers, individuals and organizations intending to assess readiness for any HIT implementation.
Identify studies, analyze readiness factors and offer recommendations.
Published articles 1995-2016 were searched using Medline/PubMed, Cinahl, Web of Science, PsychInfo, ProQuest. Studies were included if they were assessing IS/T/mHealth readiness in the context of HIT. Articles not written in English were excluded. Themes that emerged in the process of the data synthesis were thematically analysed and interpreted.
Analyzed themes were found across 63 articles. In accordance with their prevalence of use, they included but not limited to "Technological readiness", 30 (46%); "Core/Need/Motivational readiness", 23 (37%); "Acceptance and use readiness", 19 (29%); "Organizational readiness", 20 (21%); "IT skills/Training/Learning readiness" (18%), "Engagement readiness", 16 (24%) and "Societal readiness" (14%). Despite their prevalence in use, "Technological readiness", "Motivational readiness" and "Engagement readiness" all had myriad and unreliable measuring tools. Core readiness had relatively reliable measuring tools, which repeatedly been used in various readiness assessment studies CONCLUSION: Thus, there is the need for reliable measuring tools for even the most commonly used readiness assessment factors/constructs: Core readiness, Engagement and buy-ins readiness, Technological readiness and IT Skills readiness as this could serve as an immediate step in conducting effective/reliable e-Health readiness assessment, which could lead to reduced HIT implementation failures.
卫生信息技术（HIT）/信息系统（IS）/信息技术（IT）系统不断发展、应用且失败率高，这就需要进行有效的准备情况评估，以避免失败不断增加，同时提高系统效益。然而，关于HIT准备情况评估的文献众多且零散。本综述梳理了现有文献的概况，为有意评估任何HIT实施准备情况的政策制定者、研究人员、个人和组织得出了一套易于管理且实用的建议。
识别相关研究，分析准备因素并提供建议。
使用Medline/PubMed、护理学与健康领域数据库（Cinahl）、科学引文索引（Web of Science）、心理学文摘数据库（PsychInfo）、ProQuest检索1995 - 2016年发表的文章。若研究在HIT背景下评估IS/IT/移动健康（mHealth）准备情况，则纳入研究。排除非英文撰写的文章。对数据综合过程中出现的数据进行主题分析和解读。
在63篇文章中发现了分析得出的主题。按照其使用频率，这些主题包括但不限于“技术准备情况”，共30篇（46%）；“核心/需求/动机准备情况”，23篇（37%）；“接受和使用准备情况”，19篇（29%）；“组织准备情况”，20篇（21%）；“IT技能/培训/学习准备情况”（18%），“参与准备情况”，16篇（24%）和“社会准备情况”（14%）。尽管“技术准备情况 ”“动机准备情况”和“参与准备情况”使用频率较高，但它们都有众多且不可靠的测量工具。核心准备情况有相对可靠的测量工具，这些工具已在各种准备情况评估研究中反复使用。结论：因此，即使是最常用的准备情况评估因素/结构，如核心准备情况、参与和支持准备情况、技术准备情况和IT技能准备情况，也需要可靠的测量工具，因为这可能是进行有效/可靠的电子健康准备情况评估的第一步，这可能会减少HIT实施失败的情况。
