Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta‐narrative Method

Abstract

Context:The extensive research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches.Methods: Using the meta-narrative method and searching beyond the Medlineindexed literature, this review used "conflicting" findings to address higherorder questions about how researchers had differently conceptualized and studied the EPR and its implementation.

Investigating Forty Years of Stem Research: How Explanations for the Gender Gap Have Evolved Over Time

“…In the present analysis, we elected to consider the past forty years due to the notable emergence of STEM literature in the early 1970s. Finally, the meta-narrative is meant to exemplify where in the literature scholars may be disagreeing, rather than to highlight the extent of agreement among researchers (Greenhalgh et al, 2009). This is a particularly important point, as our present interest in the evolving nature of research related to women's underrepresentation in college STEM majors does not explicitly necessitate "disagreeing" per se; in this way, the final meta-narrative characteristic must be left open for interpretation as to what constitutes a disagreement in the literature.…”

Hybridity as a process of technology's ‘translation’: Customizing a national Electronic Patient Record

“…Electronic Patient Record (EPR) systems can be developed within and by healthcare organizations or, more commonly, they can be bought as generic software products (Davidson & Chiasson, 2005;Greenhalgh et al, 2009;Sawyer, 2000;Williams & Pollock, 2008). The latter give clients the chance to get software that embodies 'best practices' and also standards such as technical, procedural, output oriented and terminological that enable coordination, prescribe work and provide a shared language that allows consistency of the messages being exchanged (Boulus & Bjorn, 2010;Brunsson et al, 2012;Hanseth et al, 2006;Hanseth & Lundberg, 2001;Timmermans & Berg, 2003;Timmermans & Epstein, 2010;Wagner & Newell, 2004;Yeow & Sia, 2008).…”

Health care: a case of hypercomplexity?

“…The healthcare research field is populated by groups of people whose stances are such that their ability to enter into dialogue with one another is limited. Greenhalgh et al (2009) identify four such philosophical positions: positivist, interpretivist, critical, and recursive. Such paradigmatic diversity characterises many research fields, of course.…”