King's Centre for Global Health and Health Partnerships, School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, London, UK.
School of Education, Communication and Society, Waterloo Bridge Wing, Franklin Wilkins Building, London, UK.
Health Expect. 2019 Oct;22(5):838-848. doi: 10.1111/hex.12895. Epub 2019 May 3.
Policy discussions reference ideas of informed and active users of e-health services who gain agency through self-management, choice and care delivered outside clinical settings. In this article, we aim to problematize this association by "thinking with" material from multiple disciplines to generate higher order insights to inform service development, research and policy.
Drawing on meta-narrative review methods, we gathered perspectives from multiple disciplines using an iterative process of expert consultation to identify seminal papers citation mapping, synthesis and peer review.
We identify six relevant paradigms from sociology, philosophy, health services research, public health, the study of social movements and computer studies. Bringing these paradigms together illuminates the contrasting epistemological and ontological framings that co-exist in this area, including competing conceptualizations of e-health technologies as: neutral tools for service delivery, mediators within complex and unpredictable clinical interactions and as agents in their own right.
There is a need for e-health policy to recognize many human and non-human actors, the blurred boundaries between them and the unpredictable and evolving interactions that constitute engagement with e-health care. Established models for e-health service development and policy making are not designed for this landscape. There is nothing to be gained by asking whether e-health, in general, either "increases" or "decreases" agency. Rather specific types and aspects of e-health have diverse effects and can be simultaneously enabling and disempowering, and be differentially experienced by differently positioned and resourced actors.
政策讨论参考了电子健康服务的知情和积极用户的想法,这些用户通过自我管理、选择和在临床环境之外提供的护理获得代理权。在本文中,我们旨在通过“与”来自多个学科的材料“一起思考”,生成更高层次的见解,为服务开发、研究和政策提供信息,从而对这种关联提出质疑。
我们借鉴元叙述评论方法,通过专家咨询的迭代过程,从多个学科中收集观点,以确定开创性论文的引文映射、综合和同行评审。
我们从社会学、哲学、卫生服务研究、公共卫生、社会运动研究和计算机研究中确定了六个相关范式。将这些范式放在一起,揭示了该领域中存在的相互矛盾的认识论和本体论框架,包括对电子健康技术的竞争概念化:作为服务交付的中性工具、在复杂和不可预测的临床互动中的调解者以及作为自身的代理。
电子健康政策需要认识到许多人和非人的行为者、它们之间的模糊界限以及构成电子健康护理参与的不可预测和不断发展的相互作用。现有的电子健康服务开发和政策制定模式并非为此而设计。询问电子健康一般来说是否“增加”或“减少”代理权并没有任何好处。相反,电子健康的特定类型和方面具有不同的影响,可以同时具有赋权和赋权的效果,并且可以由不同定位和资源的行为者以不同的方式体验。