Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jan 12:13:19.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-19.

Implementation factors and their effect on e-Health service adoption in rural communities: a systematic literature review

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Implementation factors and their effect on e-Health service adoption in rural communities: a systematic literature review

Eveline Hage et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: An ageing population is seen as a threat to the quality of life and health in rural communities, and it is often assumed that e-Health services can address this issue. As successful e-Health implementation in organizations has proven difficult, this systematic literature review considers whether this is so for rural communities. This review identifies the critical implementation factors and, following the change model of Pettigrew and Whipp, classifies them in terms of "context", "process", and "content". Through this lens, we analyze the empirical findings found in the literature to address the question: How do context, process, and content factors of e-Health implementation influence its adoption in rural communities?

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review. This review included papers that met six inclusion and exclusion criteria and had sufficient methodological quality. Findings were categorized in a classification matrix to identify promoting and restraining implementation factors and to explore whether any interactions between context, process, and content affect adoption.

Results: Of the 5,896 abstracts initially identified, only 51 papers met all our criteria and were included in the review. We distinguished five different perspectives on rural e-Health implementation in these papers. Further, we list the context, process, and content implementation factors found to either promote or restrain rural e-Health adoption. Many implementation factors appear repeatedly, but there are also some contradictory results. Based on a further analysis of the papers' findings, we argue that interaction effects between context, process, and content elements of change may explain these contradictory results. More specifically, three themes that appear crucial in e-Health implementation in rural communities surfaced: the dual effects of geographical isolation, the targeting of underprivileged groups, and the changes in ownership required for sustainable e-Health adoption.

Conclusions: Rural e-Health implementation is an emerging, rapidly developing, field. Too often, e-Health adoption fails due to underestimating implementation factors and their interactions. We argue that rural e-Health implementation only leads to sustainable adoption (i.e. it "sticks") when the implementation carefully considers and aligns the e-Health content (the "clicks"), the pre-existing structures in the context (the "bricks"), and the interventions in the implementation process (the "tricks").

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of papers per perspective.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. New York: World population ageing; 2009.
    1. Poisal JA, Truffer C, Smith S, Sisko A, Cowan C, Keehan S. et al.Health spending projections through 2016: modest changes obscure part D’s impact. Health Aff. 2007;26:242–253. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w242. - DOI - PubMed
    1. OECD. Society at a Glance, OECD-Social Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2009.
    1. Marsden T. Rural futures: Countryside and its regulation. Sociol Rural. 1999;39(4):501–520. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00121. - DOI
    1. Fésüs G, Rillaers A, Poelman H, Gáková Z. Regions 2020: Demographic challenges for European regions, Commission of European communities. 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/regions2020....

Publication types