Advertisement

Actor-Network Theory to Assist in Understanding the Implementation and Adoption of Health Information Systems

  • Imran Muhammad
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
Chapter
Part of the Healthcare Delivery in the Information Age book series (Healthcare Delivery Inform. Age)

Abstract

Given the current pressures on healthcare delivery to be cost effective yet provide high quality, healthcare systems are turning to ICT (information communication technology) to help resolve this conundrum. Such e-health solutions range from being on one-side patient controlled to the other end of the spectrum being provider controlled. However, most agree that these solutions should not only be patient-centric but also should be analysed under the lens of theoretically informed analytical tools. One approach identified in the literature used to facilitate correct and accurate capturing of the complexities and levels of interactions in healthcare operations is to use actor-network theory (ANT).

To demonstrate the benefits and strengths of using the actor-network theory, this chapter evaluates the merits of ANT analysis for the implementation and adoption of health information systems (HIS).

Keywords

Actor network theory Socio-technical systems Implementation Adoption Acceptance 

References

  1. Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006). IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: A fit framework and a case study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6, 3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. André, B., Ringdal, G. I., Loge, J. H., Rannestad, T., Laerum, H., & Kaasa, S. (2008). Experiences with the implementation of computerized tools in health care units: A review article. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(8), 753–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basch, P. (2005). Electronic health records and the national health information network: Affordable, adoptable, and ready for prime time? Annals of Internal Medicine, 143(3), 227–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, M., Aarts, J., & van der Lei, J. (2003). ICT in health care: Sociotechnical approaches. Methods of Information in Medicine, 42(4), 297–301.  https://doi.org/10.1267/METH03040297.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloomfield, B. (1991). The role of information systems in the health service: Action at a distance and the fetish of calculation. Social Studies of Science, 21. SRC-GoogleScholar, 701–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge and Kegan PaulCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory–the market test. Actor Network Theory and After, 47, 181–195.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1988). Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: A network analysis of technological change. Social Problems, 35(3), 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Car, J., Anandan, C., Black, A., Cresswell, K., Pagliari, C., McKinstry, B., et al. (2008). The impact of eHealth on the quality & safety of healthcare: A systematic overview and synthesis of the literature, report, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme. London: Imperial College London.Google Scholar
  10. Catwell, L., & Sheikh, A. (2009). Evaluating eHealth interventions: The need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Medicine, 6(8), e1000126.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Coiera, E. (2004). Four rules for the reinvention of health care. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 328(7449), 1197–1199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cresswell, K., Worth, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). Implementing and adopting electronic health record systems: How actor-network theory can support evaluation. Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 16(4), 320–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cresswell, K. M., Worth, A., & Sheikh, A. (2010). Actor-network theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10, 67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Rao, S. R., Donelan, K., Ferris, T. G., Jha, A., et al. (2008). Electronic health records in ambulatory care – A national survey of physicians. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(1), 50–60.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0802005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Doolin, B., & Lowe, A. (2002). To reveal is to critique: Actor-network theory and critical information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenhalgh, T., & Stones, R. (2010). Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Social science & medicine (1982), 70(9), 1285–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, L. M., Ferguson-Paré, M., Peter, E., White, D., Besner, J., Chisholm, A., et al. (2010). Going blank: Factors contributing to interruptions to nurses’ work and related outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 1040–1047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Harding, S. G. (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kaghan, W., & Bowker, G. (2001). Out of machine age?: Complexity, sociotechnical systems and actor network theory. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, B., Harbers, H., & Koenis, S. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Law, J. (1991). A Sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Law, J. (1999). In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Law, J. (2006). Networks, relations, cyborgs: on the social study of technology. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/21394/
  25. Law, J., & Callon, M. (1992). The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technical change. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (p. 360). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenzi, N., Kouroubali, A., Detmer, D. E., & Bloomrosen, M. (2009). How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 9, 15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Lubitz, D., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2006). Healthcare and technology: The doctrine of networkcentric healthcare. International Journal of Electronic Healthcare, 2, 322–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLean, C., & Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the production of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 493–519.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00442.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research and methods (pp. 503–543). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell, V., & Nault, B. (2008). The emergence of functional knowledge in sociotechnical systems. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Monteiro, E. (2000). Actor-network theory and information infrastructure. From Control to Drift, 71–83.Google Scholar
  34. Mort, M., Finch, T., & May, C. (2009). Making and unmaking telepatients: Identity and governance in new health technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(1), 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muhammad, I., Teoh, S. Y., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2012). Why using Actor Network Theory (ANT) can help to understand the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) in Australia. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), 4(2), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muhammad, I., Teoh, S. Y., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2013). The need for a socio-technical analysis in e-health: The case of the PCEHR. International Journal of E-Health and Medical Communications (IJEHMC), 4(2), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mutch, A. (2002). Actors and networks or agents and structures: Towards a realist view of information systems. Organization, 9(3), 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Protti, D., & Smit, C. (2006). The Netherlands: Another European country where GPs have been using EMRs for over twenty years. Healthcare Information Management & Communications, 30(3). Available at: http://www.healthcareimc.com/bcovers/PDFS/TheNetherlands.pdf
  39. Rydin, Y. (2010). Actor-network theory and planning theory: A response to Boelens. Planning Theory, 9, 265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singleton, V., & Michael, M. (1993). Actor-networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the UK cervical screening programme. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 227–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tobler, N. (2008). Technology, organizational change, and the nonhuman agent: Exploratory analysis of electronic health record implementation in a small practice ambulatory care. Utah: The University of Utah.Google Scholar
  42. Trudel, M. C. (2010). Challenges to personal information sharing in interorganizational settings: Learning from the Quebec Health Smart Card project. London: The University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  43. Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects. In Information Systems and Qualitative Research: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research (pp. 466–481), 31st May–3rd June 1997, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wickramasinghe, N., & Bali, R. K. (2009). The S’ANT imperative for realizing the vision of healthcare network centric operations. International Journal of ActorNetwork Theory and Technological Innovation IJANTTI, 1(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wickramasinghe, N., Bali, R. K., & Lehaney, B. (2009). Knowledge management primer. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  46. Wickramasinghe, N., & Schaffer, J. (2010). Realizing value driven e-health solutions. Washington DC: IBM Centre for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  47. Wickramasinghe, N., Tatnall, A., & Goldberg, S. (2011). The advantages of mobile solutions for chronic disease management. In PACIS 2011 Proceedings. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/214
  48. Wickramasinghe, N., Tatnall, A., & Goldberg, S. (2012). Understanding the advantages of mobile solutions for chronic disease management: The role of ant as a rich theoretical lens. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 4(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.4018/jantti.2012010101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, R. (2007). Managing complex adaptive networks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning (pp. 441–452).Google Scholar
  50. Williams-Jones, B., & Graham, J. E. (2003). Actor-network theory: A tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genetics and Society, 22(3), 271–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imran Muhammad
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.Epworth HealthCareRichmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations