Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 339–357 | Cite as

Engineering sustainable mHealth: the role of Action Research

  • Ulf GerhardtEmail author
  • Rüdiger Breitschwerdt
  • Oliver Thomas
Original Article

Abstract

The present paper aims to review the value of Action Research (AR) in the evolution of sustainable mHealth. On the one hand, mHealth is a medically and economically massively expanding domain. On the other hand, the mHealth development suffers from a serious lack of sustainability, which has become particularly evident through the concept of “pilotitis.” The proposed methodological remedy shows a high congruence to the principle of AR. A quantitative and qualitative literature research is performed. Each result from the qualitative literature research is analyzed with regard to aim, main focuses of AR methodology, study results and AR contribution to mHealth development. The principles of AR with regard to mHealth development are described, showing a strong connection between corresponding methodology and effects in health care. We analyze the quantitative contribution of AR to health care in general and show the typical phases of AR healthcare implementation. Furthermore, a quantitative literature research reveals that AR contributes to 6 % of mHealth publications. Our qualitative literature research discovers 27 studies dealing with AR contributions (54 % direct, 46 % methodological) to mHealth. Main subjects of the direct contributions are Health Information Systems (38 %), Surgery (23 %), Conservative/internal medicine (15 %), Self-help (15 %) and Medical Education (8 %). In summary, our review shows that AR contributes qualitatively and quantitatively to the mHealth development and that AR has a special potential to generate sustainable mHealth solutions.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Action Research IS design mHealth Sustainability Health Information Systems Pilotitis 

Notes

Author contributions

The present review is part of the PhD thesis of the first author. He introduced the original research idea into the research group, worked out the overview of AR, performed the qualitative and quantitative literature review and contributed decisively to the discussion. The other two authors acted as scientific supervisors, supplemented the literature selection with respect to the scholarly basket and revised the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. Aanestad M, Joliffe B, Mukherjee A, Sahay S (2014) Infrastructuring work: building a State-Wide Hospital information infrastructure in india information systems research online publication 17 November. doi: 10.1287/isre.2014.0557
  2. Ahari SS, Habibzadeh S, Yousefi M, Amani F, Abdi R (2012) Community based needs assessment in an urban area: a participatory action research project. BMC Publ Health 12(1):161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asangansi I, Braa K (2010) The emergence of mobile-supported national health information systems in developing countries. Stud Health Technol Inform 160(Pt 1):540–544Google Scholar
  5. Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2, Article 19Google Scholar
  6. Beijma H (2011) Pilotitis, the biggest disease in mhealth. http://de.slideshare.net/texttochange/pilotitis-the-biggest-disease-in-mhealth. Accessed 31 Mar 2015
  7. Braa K, Sanner T (2011) Making mHealth happen for health information systems in low resource contexts. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, Kathmandu, Nepal: 530–541Google Scholar
  8. Braa K, Monteiro E, Sahay S (2004) Networks of action: sustainable health information systems across developing countries. MIS Q 28(3):337–362Google Scholar
  9. Braa K, Hanseth O, Heywood A, Mohammed W, Shaw V (2007) Developing health information systems in developing countries: the flexible standards strategy. MIS Q 31(August):1–22Google Scholar
  10. Braa K, Heywood A, Sahay S (2012) Improving quality and use of data through data-use workshops: Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania. Bull World Health Organ 90(5):379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlozzi NE, Tulsky DS, Kisala PA (2011) Traumatic brain injury patient-reported outcome measure: identification of health-related quality-of-life issues relevant to individuals with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92(10 Suppl):S52–S60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaiyachati KH, Loveday M, Lorenz S, Lesh N, Larkan L-M, Cinti S, Friedland GH, Haberer JE (2013) A pilot study of an mHealth application for healthcare workers: poor uptake despite high reported acceptability at a rural South African community-based MDR-TB treatment program. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charupash R, Taksinajenkit K, Somjaipen S (2010) Applying the sufficient economical theory in personal money planning: a class room action research at Sirindhron Public Health College Khon Kaen Province, Thailand. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2(2):3792–3795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Checkland P, Holwell S (2007) Action Research. In: Kock N (ed) Information systems action research. Springer, Boston, pp 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiasson M, Reddy M, Kaplan B, Davidson E (2007) Expanding multi-disciplinary approaches to healthcare information technologies: what does information systems offer medical informatics? Int J Med Inf 76(Suppl 1):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cintra RF, Vieira SFA, Hall RJ, Fernandes CR (2013) Information from the invoicing sector as support for decision-making: a case study at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD). Ciência and saúde coletiva 18(10):3043–3053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Courtney-Pratt H, Cummings E, TurnerP Cameron-Tucker H, Wood-Baker R, Walters EH, Robinson AL (2012) Entering a world of uncertainty: community nurses’ engagement with information and communication technology. Comput Inf Nurs: CIN 30(11):612–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cuisance D, Rioux J-A (2004) Current status of medical and veterinary entomology in France: endangered discipline or promising science? Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 27(5):377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davison R, Martinsons MG, Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research. Inf Syst J 14(1):65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delf P (2013) Designing effective eLearning for healthcare professionals. Radiography 19(4):315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Divakaran PKP (2013) Pre-release member participation as potential predictors of post-release community members’ adoption behaviour: evidence from the motion picture industry. Behav Inf Technol 32(6):545–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ehde DM, Wegener ST, Williams RM, Ephraim PL, Stevenson JE, Isenberg PJ, Mackenzie EJ (2013) Developing, testing, and sustaining rehabilitation interventions via participatory action research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94(1 Suppl):S30–S42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ekberg J, Gursky EA, Timpka T (2013) Pre-launch evaluation checklist for online health-promoting communities. J Biomed Inf Online Publ. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.10.004 Google Scholar
  24. Fiordelli M, Diviani N, Schulz PJ (2013) Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution. J Med Internet Res 15(5):e95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hallberg N, Timpka T, Eriksson H (1999) The medical software quality deployment method. Methods Inf Med 38(1):66–73Google Scholar
  26. Henderson BD (1970) The product portfolio. http://www.bcg.de/documents/file52312.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2015
  27. Ho K, Marsden J, Jarvis-Selinger S, Novak Lauscher H, Kamal N, Stenstrom R, Sweet D, Goldman RD, Innes G (2012) A collaborative quality improvement model and electronic community of practice to support sepsis management in emergency departments: investigating care harmonization for provincial knowledge translation. JMIR Res Protoc 1(2):e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janssen J, Hale L, Mirfin-Veitch B, Harland T (2013) Building the research capacity of clinical physical therapists using a participatory action research approach. Phys Ther 93(7):923–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jinks C, Ong BN, O’Neill TJ (2009) The Keele community knee pain forum: action research to engage with stakeholders about the prevention of knee pain and disability. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jonker J, Pennink B (2009) The essence of research methodology. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joyner K, Mash B (2012) A comprehensive model for intimate partner violence in South African primary care: action research. BMC Health Serv Res 12(1):399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Källander K, Tibenderana JK, Akpogheneta OJ, Strachan DL, Hill Z, Ten Asbroek AHA, Conteh L, Kirkwood BR, Meek SR (2013) Mobile health (mHealth) approaches and lessons for increased performance and retention of community health workers in low- and middle-income countries: a review. J Med Internet Res 15(1):e17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanfer FH, Reinecker H, Schmelzer D (2012) Selbstmanagement-therapie, 5th edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kant I (1986) Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1st edition in 1781). Reclam Verlag, DitzingenGoogle Scholar
  35. Kimaro HC, Twaakyondo HM (2005) Analysing the hindrance to the use of information and technology for improving efficiency of health care delivery system in Tanzania. Tanzania Health Res Bull 7(3):189–197Google Scholar
  36. Kohli R, Hoadley ED (2007) Healthcare: fertile ground for action research. In: Kock N (ed) Information systems action research. Boston, Massachusetts, Springer science and Business Media, pp 241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kohli R, Kettinger WJ (2004) Informating the clan: controlling physicians’ costs and outcomes. MIS Q 28(3):363–394Google Scholar
  38. Kotter J (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuipers P, Humphreys JS, Wakerman J, Wells R, Jones J, Entwistle P (2008) Collaborative review of pilot projects to inform policy: a methodological remedy for pilotitis? Aust New Zealand Health Policy 5(1):17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kyhlbäck H, Sutter B (2007) What does it take to replace an old functioning information system with a new one? A case study. Int J Med Inform 76(Suppl 1):S149–S158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lalonde L, Goudreau J, Hudon É, Lussier M-T, Duhamel F, Bélanger D, Lévesque L, Martin É (2012) Priorities for action to improve cardiovascular preventive care of patients with multimorbid conditions in primary care–a participatory action research project. Fam Pract 29(6):733–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lemaire JL (2011) Scaling up mobile health elements necessary for the mHealth in developing countries. http://www.adaorganization.net/uploads/2/3/7/1/23713723/scaling_up_mobile_health_elements_necessary_for_the_successful_scale_up_of_mhealth_in_developing_countries.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2015
  43. Lewin K (1948) Action research and minority problems. In: Lewin GW (ed) Resolving social conflicts. Harper, New York, pp 34–36Google Scholar
  44. Menschner P, Leimeister JM (2012) Devising a method for developing knowledge-intense, person-oriented services—results from early evaluation. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Maui, USA, pp 1502–1511Google Scholar
  45. Meyer J (2000) Qualitative research in health care. Using qualitative methods in health related action research. BMJ 320(7228):178–181 (Clinical research ed.) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olvingson C, Hallberg N, Timpka T, Lindqvist K (2002) Requirements engineering for inter-organizational health information systems with functions for spatial analyses: modeling a WHO safe community applying use case maps. Methods Inf Med 41(4):299–304Google Scholar
  47. Peters M, Robinson V (1984) The Origins and Status of Action Research. J Appl Behav Sci 20(2):113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Petrocelli J (2002) Processes and stages of change: counseling with the transtheoretical model of change. J Couns Dev 80:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pilemalm S, Timpka T (2008) Third generation participatory design in health informatics–making user participation applicable to large-scale information system projects. J Biomed Inform 41(2):327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Puri SK, Sahay S, Lewis J (2009) Building participatory HIS networks: a case study from Kerala, India. Inf Organ 19(2):63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Purkayastha S, Manda TD, Sanner TA (2013) A post-development perspective on mhealth—an implementation initiative in malawi. 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS). Maui, USA, pp 4217–4225Google Scholar
  52. Robertson JM (1995) Principals’ partnerships: an action research study on the professional development of New Zealand school leaders. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Waikato, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  53. Robertson J (2000) The three Rs of action research methodology: reciprocity, reflexivity and reflection-on-reality. Educ Act Res 8(2):307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rudtanasudjatum K (2008) Road traffic accidents management model: The successful application of stakeholder involvement in Chon Buri, Thailand. In 2008 8th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, pp 195–198Google Scholar
  55. Sanner TA, Roland LK, Braa K (2012) From pilot to scale: towards an mHealth typology for low-resource contexts. Health Policy Technol 1(3):155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shahar S, Adznam SN, Rahman SA, Yusoff NAM, Yassin Z, Arshad F, Sakian NIM, Salleh M, Samah AA (2012) Development and analysis of acceptance of a nutrition education package among a rural elderly population: an action research study. BMC Geriatr 12(1):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Skinner H, Maley O, Norman CD (2006) Developing internet-based eHealth promotion programs: the Spiral Technology Action Research (STAR) model. Health Promot Pract 7(4):406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Solomon BS, Duce D, Harrison R, Boness K (2012) Modeling social media collaborative work. In 2012 4th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MISE), pp 43–49Google Scholar
  59. Stringer ET (2013) Action Research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  60. Susman G, Evered RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm Sci Q 23(4):582–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tanasugarn C, Thongbunjob K (2012) Human capital identification process: linkage for family medicine and community medicine to mobilize the community. J Med Assoc Thai Chotmaihet Thangphaet 95(Suppl 6):S94–S101Google Scholar
  62. Terazzi A, Giordano A, Minuco G (1997) An example of usability measurement in clinical software procedures. Stud Health Technol Inform 43(B):736–740Google Scholar
  63. Terazzi A, Giordano A, Minuco G (1998) How can usability measurement affect the re-engineering process of clinical software procedures? Int J Med Inform 52(1–3):229–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson MP (2002) Cultivating meaning: interpretive fine-tuning of a South African health information system. Inf Organ 12(3):183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tomlinson M, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Swartz L, Tsai AC (2013) Scaling up mHealth: where is the evidence? PLoS Med 10(2):e1001382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, De Koning K (2001) Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health Technol Assessment 5(23): iii–157Google Scholar
  67. Weick KE, Quinn RE (1999) Organizational change and development. Annu Rev Psychol 50:361–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Winkelman WJ, Leonard KJ (2004) Overcoming structural constraints to patient utilization of electronic medical records: a critical review and proposal for an evaluation framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 11(2):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wise M, Pulvermacher A, Shanovich KK, Gustafson DH, Sorkness C, Bhattacharya A (2010) Using action research to implement an integrated pediatric asthma case management and eHealth intervention for low-income families. Health Promot Pract 11(6):798–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ziegenfuss JT (1987) Research information systems are path to high-quality healthcare. Health progress (Saint Louis, Mo.) 68(8): 50–3, 82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulf Gerhardt
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Rüdiger Breitschwerdt
    • 2
  • Oliver Thomas
    • 3
  1. 1.Paracelsus-WiehengebirgsklinikBad EssenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for eHealth and Management in HealthcareUniversity of Applied SciencesFlensburgGermany
  3. 3.Information Management and Information Systems (IMWI)Osnabrueck UniversityOsnabrueckGermany

Personalised recommendations