literature review of care

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Core Dimensions of Integrated Care: A Literature Review to Support the Development of a Comprehensive Framework for Implementing Integrated Care

Laura g gonzález-ortiz , phd, stefano calciolari , phd, nick goodwin , phd, viktoria stein , phd.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Received 2018 Jul 24; Accepted 2018 Jul 24; Collection date 2018 Jul-Sep.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

As part of the EU-funded Project INTEGRATE, the research sought to develop an evidence-based understanding of the key dimensions and items of integrated care associated with successful implementation across varying country contexts and relevant to different chronic and/or long-term conditions. This paper identifies the core dimensions of integrated care based on a review of previous literature on the topic.

Methodology:

The research reviewed literature evidence from the peer-reviewed and grey literature. It focused on reviewing research articles that had specifically developed frameworks on integrated care and/or set out key elements for successful implementation. The search initially focused on three main scientific journals and was limited to the period from 2006 to 2016. Then, the research snowballed the references from the selected published studies and engaged leading experts in the field to supplement the identification of relevant literature. Two investigators independently reviewed the selected articles using a standard data collection tool to gather the key elements analyzed in each article.

A total of 710 articles were screened by title and abstract. Finally, 18 scientific contributions were selected, including studies from grey literature and experts’ suggestions. The analysis identified 175 items grouped in 12 categories.

Conclusions:

Most of the key factors reported in the literature derive from studies that developed their frameworks in specific contexts and/or for specific types of conditions. The identification and classification of the elements from this literature review provide a basis to develop a comprehensive framework enabling standardized descriptions and benchmarking of integrated care initiatives carried out in different contexts.

Keywords: benchmarking, chronic conditions, framework, implementation science, integrated care, literature review

Introduction

This paper presents findings from the “International Check” work package of Project INTEGRATE that was funded within the EU 7 th Framework Program (EU Grant Agreement 305821; see http://projectintegrate.eu.com ). The overall purpose of the work package was to develop an evidence-based framework on the key dimensions and items of integrated care associated with successful implementation. Moreover, the purpose of such a framework was designed to support decision-makers in the effective design and implementation of integrated care programs[ 1 ].

Several studies have contributed to the development of theoretical frameworks for integrated care implementation (e.g. [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]). The articles and technical reports published on the topic identify factors or structures of elements fostering care integration, most often for people suffering from chronic and/or long-term conditions. In addition, most of these studies focus on a specific context of implementation (e.g. in coordinating services around people with a chronic illness) and so do not appreciate the influential role that contextual factors in care integration can play in determining outcomes (e.g. of finances, cultures, organizational forms etc.) [ 11 ]. In the former case, the resulting framework or list of key factors is likely to be tailored for the selected setting. In the latter case, it is hard to disentangle the context dependence of the analytical proposal.

Context is very important in evaluating the implementation of complex service innovations like integrated care and so any framework must be robust enough to understand the intricate interplay between multi-component interventions across contexts and settings [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The COMIC Model for the comprehensive evaluation of integrated care interventions [ 11 ], for example, has illustrated how the use or realistic synthesis to study the interplay between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes can bring insights into understanding how and why integrated care interventions succeed or fail.

Hence, to understand the complex and dynamic issues at play in the implementation of integrated care a more comprehensive framework is necessary that helps to benchmark initiatives across different contexts and condition-specific population groups. The task is a challenging one and cannot disregard the accumulated knowledge in the field. Therefore, as a first step in this direction, it is paramount to analyze and summarize the findings from previous studies in this respect. This can provide the basis for a more comprehensive approach to understanding how integrated care may be implemented by building on the evidence available in the extant literature of integrated care.

This paper presents a comprehensive, non-systematic, review of the extant literature on care integration design and implementation. Coherently with the objectives of Project INTEGRATE, this study purposefully focuses on initiatives targeting patients affected by chronic diseases (COPD and diabetes) and people living with geriatric and/or mental health conditions. The purpose of this paper, therefore, has been to build a more comprehensive understanding of the factors and elements associated with successful integrated care implementation as a precursor to the development of a new conceptual framework. The objectives of this paper are: (1) to identify the most important factors influencing the success of an initiative of care integration across different contexts; and (2) to classify and summarize the identified evidence according to the extant literature in the field.

To ensure a common understanding of the concept, Project INTEGRATE utilised Kodner and Spreeuwenberg’s definition of integrated care as: ‘a coherent set of methods and models on the funding, administrative, organisational, service delivery and clinical levels designed to create connectivity, alignment and collaboration within and between the cure and care sectors’ [ 14 ]. Hence, the main purpose of integrated care interventions consists of reducing fragmentations in service delivery and to foster both comprehensiveness of care and better care co-ordination around people’s needs. Many frameworks have been developed over time to understand the key elements, or building blocks, of integrated care [ 15 ].

One of the most well-known is the Chronic Care Model (CCM) that was developed from a Cochrane systematic review [ 10 ]. This work developed a comprehensive framework for the organization of healthcare to improve outcomes for people with chronic conditions. It identified six interrelated domains that should be considered to facilitate high-quality chronic disease care, thus improving health outcomes [ 3 ]. The CCM identifies the main areas of intervention to accomplish such a goal and enhance the health outcomes for specific target patients. In particular, its approach focuses on fostering an effective use of community resources; enabling patient self-management, nurturing evidence-based care and patient preferences, and leveraging on the use of supportive information technology [ 4 ].

Since the CCM focuses on the delivery of clinically oriented systems to patient it did not include many key aspects of care integration – for example, regarding health promotion and prevention, or indeed of rehabilitation and re-ablement. In this respect, Barr and colleagues proposed an evolution of the model, called the Expanded Chronic Model (ECCM) [ 2 ]. The ECCM includes elements specifically aimed to promote population health and encourage prevention by involving the community. Another variation is the Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions model (ICCC) [ 16 ]. Developed by the WHO as part of a ‘road map’ for health systems to deal with the rising burden of chronic illness, the ICCC placed a specific premium on prevention through ‘productive partnerships’ between patients and families, community partners and health care teams to create informed, prepared and motivated communities. In this respect, recent developments of integrated care initiatives, such as the patient-centred medical home (PCMH), have stressed the importance of delivering continuous, comprehensive and coordinated care in the context of people’s family and community [ 17 ].

The frameworks described above have primarily evolved from the USA and been confined in their thinking to within health systems. They have also not sought to identify key actions that decision-makers would need to implement integrated care effectively, such as governance and accountability, financing and incentives, or issues related to culture and values. However, other work has sought to address this. For example, a knowledge synthesis from Canada developed an influential paper entitled ‘ten principles of successful integrated systems’ [ 18 ].

More recently, Minkman et al. [ 7 ] carried out a study, based on a Delphi method, to identify and validate analytical key factors of care integration. The authors started by identifying elements from the literature. Then, they conducted a three-round Delphi study among a group of thirty-one experts, who provided comments to rank 175 elements in priority order. Then, the expert panel clustered the elements and discussed their content following a concept mapping procedure. Finally, the authors identified 89 relevant elements grouped into nine clusters. The results aim to develop a comprehensive quality management model for integrated care.

In another recent paper, Valentijn et al. [ 9 ] proposed a taxonomy to facilitate the description and comparison of different integrated care interventions. The taxonomy consists of 59 key elements resulting from a two-round Delphi study. This contribution is the development of a companion paper [ 8 ] in which the authors proposed a general model, known as the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. Such model proposes six dimensions (in which the aforementioned 59 elements are grouped) and has a primary care perspective.

Compared to the CCM and the ECCM, the last two models are much more analytical in terms of the wider range of factors necessary to support the effective development of integrated care systems. Despite the differences they currently compete to propose an evidence-based perspective on the topic. Each has been developed for a different purpose and each varies in scope, for example, from the process of coordinating services around people with chronic conditions to enabling health and social care systems to operate more cohesively. For professionals and decision-makers tasked with designing and implementing integrated care for different client groups in a range of contexts and settings this potentially provides for confusion on the most appropriate frameworks and models they might use. This indicates that a more comprehensive framework – one that leverages the strengths of previously published studies but which enables an understanding of the core dimensions of integrated care across contexts and settings – is necessary to support decision-makers in the design and implementation of their integrated care programs across settings and differing client groups.

Methodology

The authors searched for scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals and the most important contributions in the grey literature (research reports and conference presentations). The adopted search strategy aimed to be efficient and flexible enough to include also important seminal contributions on the topic. Therefore, the authors agreed on starting with three specialized journals where peer-reviewed articles presenting frameworks of integrated care would most likely be cited, namely: the International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC), the Journal of Integrated Care (JIC), and the International Journal of Coordinated Care 1 (IJCC). The initial search was limited to the period 2006–2015.

The two authors from USI retrieved all the abstracts published in the selected period. Then, each one read half of the abstracts of all the articles to decide which contributions should be further analyzed. At this stage, the preliminary inclusion criteria consisted of two simple questions: (a) Does the contribution propose or analyze any framework aimed to explain the success or describe the implementation of integrated care initiatives? (b) Does the article propose or analyze any important aspect/s explaining the success of integrated care initiatives?

Each of the two researchers crosschecked the list of abstracts selected by her/his colleague until they reached an agreement. Afterwards, the two researchers read separately the full text of the selected articles to confirm their inclusion. They looked for contributions defining and operationalizing relevant elements of care integration or discussing the relationships between elements of care integration (inclusion criteria). They also applied the following exclusion criteria: (1) Limited to motivating the importance and goals of integrated care; (2) Limited to describing care integration properties and/or principles; (3) Limited to problems/gaps pf a specific case or national context; (4) Limited to a specific means/technology of integration (e.g. integrated care pathways); (5) Not normative (hard to use for assessing an initiative); (6) Limited to assessment of results of integrated care (not elements/strategies of care integration); (7) Review not based on a specific framework; (8) Not focused on chronic diseases or long-term conditions; (9) Non enough details (to allow for operationalization); (10) Based on another framework/model (and with no significant additional contribution); (11) Too much focused on a specific target population (e.g., elderly, minors, diabetic patients). Then, the two researchers compared the results of their selective analysis and found agreement when it was necessary to reconcile differences.

After this step, the two researchers analyzed the references of the included contributions looking for further relevant articles (snowballing). This approach was designed to identify previously published frameworks (including in the grey literature). The complete list of the identified contributions was sent to the other two authors from IFIC, who confirmed each item and suggested relevant contributions not included. All the researchers agreed on the new list. Then they performed hand searches looking for further articles/documents in selected databases (ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Medline) and collected suggestions from experts in the field. This range of experts included those within the research consortium plus the 13 members of the Advisory Board of Project INTEGRATE comprising leading academics, policy-makers, professional and commissioners across health, social care and public health disciplines (see: www.projectintegrate.eu.com/integrated-care-purpose ).

Once all the authors agreed on the final list (with the earlies selected article published in 2002), the two researchers from USI carefully analyzed each selected contribution to identify the elements of the proposed framework or relevant aspects reported as factors fostering care integration. In some cases, the framework and/or the elements were quite evident, since they were listed or presented in a schematic way. For instance, Lyngsø et al. [ 6 ] categorized and listed the key elements in a table. In other contributions, the elements had to be meticulously identified into the text and extracted by the researchers. In such cases, both researchers independently identified and coded the elements from each selected document. Then, they cross-checked the results and found agreement on eventual differences.

The identified elements (hereafter referred as “items”) were gathered in a comprehensive list. Each item was written down textually to avoid misunderstandings in the next phase (validation). Supported by existing dimensions of the CCM, we drafted a table and placed each identified item into a corresponding category. Each item was associated with a consecutive number and the article/document where it was identified. Elements not fitting in any of the CCM dimensions were listed at the bottom of the table to be afterwards grouped into additional categories proposed by the researchers. It is important to mention that, in this study, we went for inclusiveness. Therefore, items quite similar but with non-identical wording were reported as a different item.

The database search, spanning over a decade in the publication history of the three selected journals, retrieved 710 peer-reviewed articles. The majority of these studies were subsequently excluded (679 articles) based on their title or abstract, because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Therefore, we focused on the remaining 31 articles eligible for inclusion. After full text reading, based on the aforementioned exclusion criteria, 14 studies remained.

We found articles written by the same author(s) and discussing elements to foster integrated care already proposed in preceding companion(s) paper(s). In this case, we included only the most recent article, which generally confirms or further develops ideas/notions proposed in the previous one/s. We did not include any study from the references search (snowballing), because none of the identified articles did actually meet the predefined eligibility criteria.

With regard to the grey literature and expert suggestions, we selected four studies. This resulted in 18 studies ultimately included in our review [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. From each of the selected contributions, we identified and extracted items considered influential for care integration. We obtained a comprehensive list consisting of 175 items categorized in 12 domains. The first six domains are those proposed by the CCM: health care system, community resources and policies, self-management support, delivery system design, decision support, and clinical information system. In addition, we defined six further categories (leadership, governance, performance monitoring, organizational culture, contextual factors, and social capital) to group those elements that did not fit with any of the CCM domains. Figure 1 summarizes the selection process followed in the search and Table 1 the results of the search across the 12 domains.

Flowchart of the literature selection process.

Results of the search across the identified 12 conceptual domains.

From a quantitative point of view, about one third of the items (58) are supported by at least three contributions. Considering that some items are quite similar in the list, this is a conservative measure of the level of overlapping of the research findings and it can be interpreted as a degree of convergence on some important factors.

The categories with the highest concentration of elements are the Delivery system design (51), Community resources & policies (24), Decision support (23), Performance & quality (20), Healthcare system (17). While Governance (3), Social capital (4) Organizational culture (5), Contextual factors (6), and Clinical information system (6) show the lowest concentration.

More specifically, the category with the largest number of items concerns features of the service delivery design. This suggests that processes, logistics, and human resources management (e.g., multidisciplinary teamwork, staffing of professionals, training) have been widely investigated and represent a cornerstone of care integration. In addition, 43% (or 22) of the items classified in Delivery system design are identified by at least three different contributions. This is the highest level of convergence after Leadership (44%) and Clinical information system (67%); however, each of these last two categories groups a much lower number of items. One might conclude that research has already reported convincing evidence on some important aspects that should guide the design of service delivery to integrate care.

Focusing more on the contents, on the one hand several items grouped in the Delivery system design indicate the importance of centering service delivery on the needs of the patients (e.g. #53, 59, 60–63, 66). On the other hand, several items emphasize the need for standardizing (or foster uniformity of) specific aspects/tools that are paramount to ensure care quality and coordination across organizational boundaries and settings (e.g., #64, 65, 68, 72, 75, 77, 78), together with multi-/inter-professional collaboration (e.g., #71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80).

At the system level two relevant policy areas are clearly identified: funding/financing mechanisms and priority setting coherent with the needs of the population (e.g., chronic conditions, older people) and the pillars of integrated care (e.g., cooperation between providers, synergic mobilization of community resources). The items grouped in the Contextual factors category reinforce importance of fine tuning interacting policies (e.g. health, environment, labor) with the actual needs and conditions of the population (e.g., demographic composition, orographic configuration of locations).

The categories Decision support and Community resources & policies group items that seem to point at setting the best conditions – by introducing changes and specific tools – to foster collaboration between professionals and organizations involved in the care delivery and help such actors to focus on patients’ needs and priorities.

The category Performance & Quality includes items that, rather than proposing specific technical solutions, indicate the need for fostering shared accountability on the results of the “care chain”. The few cases where end-points are proposed, they range from patient experience (e.g., satisfaction) to outcomes. This aspect, reinforced by the categories directly focused on soft aspects (i.e., Organizational culture and Social capital), suggests the importance of developing shared values to foster care integration.

Conclusions

The literature evidence reviewed here has uncovered a range of elements and factors associated with successful care integration over the last decade. Moreover, the development of conceptual frameworks to understand and guide thinking on integrated care has grown and evolved over time.

However, the majority of contributions provide recommendations related to a smaller number of specific aspects that were found to be influential. Moreover, these were often derived in specific contexts/settings or with defined target patients, especially to those with chronic illnesses as opposed to those with comorbidities or wider health and social care needs. Few studies propose, and eventually validate, frameworks indicating key areas of intervention and/or analytical aspects to consider in order to foster care integration. They are mostly lists of key building blocks to integrated care, rather than frameworks supporting the process of implementation. In addition, the retrieved frameworks generally build on the findings of previous research, but each of them assumes either a diverse (though not necessarily alternative) perspective or different analytical degree. Interestingly, despite that our review focused on forms of integrated care addressing patients with chronic diseases and long-term conditions, we found that recent frameworks (more or less explicitly) assume a population health rather than a disease-based perspective. This dramatically increases the need for accurately defining client groups or populations, including people with non-medical conditions, profiling their needs and specificities, and manage the complexity resulting from this broad perspective.

When streamlining all the aspects identified in the available relevant literature, on the one hand, it is striking the high number of factors deserving attention; however, on the other hand, there is a clear area of convergence identified by those factors mentioned in several contributions. The two findings can be considered, respectively, evidence of dynamism and indicator of the degree of maturity the research field.

Researchers seem to have concentrated their attention on the service delivery design of integrated care, with a recent shift toward the notion of person-centeredness as a way of shaping any aspect of processes and interaction with patients and their caregivers. Nevertheless, contextual aspects seem to rank more and more high in the priorities of experts in the field. Perhaps, this is the result of the aforementioned shift toward a population health perspective that tends to increase the interdependencies between the different components of a health (and social) care system. It may also be that many experts view care integration as primarily a systemic or organizational activity rather than an approach (as defined) that co-ordinates care with and around people’s needs at the clinical and service level.

A limitation of our contribution is that we searched studies that propose frameworks or key factors for integrated care starting from three selected journals specialized in the field. This could have limited our capacity to identify all available studies related to the objective of this article. However, we privileged the pertinence of the scientific source and tried to compensate the aforementioned bias by snowballing the references of the included contributions and by involving some external scholars/experts to fill eventual gaps based on their extensive knowledge.

Our selectivity allowed us to perform an exhaustive, careful review of all the included material. The extracted key elements offer a useful basis for describing and/or reflecting on integrated care initiatives for chronic illnesses and long-term conditions set in different contexts. Nevertheless, it may be difficult to obtain accurate information on all of the important aspects so far identified. Therefore, it would be useful to develop a comprehensive framework that could synthetically describe care integration initiatives implemented in different contexts and allow for efficient comparisons highlighting relevant variabilities and context-dependencies.

Acknowledgements

The study is part of Project INTEGRATE ( http://projectintegrate.eu.com ) that was funded within the EU 7 th Framework Program (EU Grant Agreement 305821).

Formerly, International Journal of Care Pathways.

Dr Teresa Burdett, Lecturer in Integrated Health Care, Professional Lead for Interprofessional Learning and Education, Unit Lead for Foundations of Integrated Care and Person Centred Services, Bournemouth University, UK.

One anonymous reviewer.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

• 1. Calciolari, S, Gonzalez-Ortiz, L, Goodwin, N and Stein, V. The Project INTEGRATE Framework. EU Project INTEGRATE, EU Grant Agreement 305821, 2016; September 2016. Accessed at: www.projectintegrate.eu.com/integrated-care/resource/the-project-integrate-framework on May 2016.
• 2. Barr, V, Robinson, S, Marin-Link, B, Underhill, L, Dotts, A, Ravensdale, D and Salivaras, S. The expanded Chronic Care Model: An integration of concepts and strategies from population health promotion and the Chronic Care Model. Hospital Quarterly, 2003; 7(1): 73–82. DOI: 10.12927/hcq.2003.16763 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Coleman, K, Austin, BT, Brach, C and Wagner, EH. Evidence on the Chronic Care Model in the new millennium. Health affairs (Project Hope), 2009; 28(1): 75–85. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.75 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Davy, C, Bleasel, J, Liu, H, Tchan, M, Ponniah, S and Brown, A. Effectiveness of chronic care models: opportunities for improving healthcare practice and health outcomes: A systematic review. BMC health services research, 2015; 15: 194 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-0854-8 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Goodwin, N, Dixon, A, Anderson, G and Wodchis, W. Providing integrated care for older people with complex needs: Lessons from seven international case studies London: The King’s Fund; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Lyngso, AM, Godtfredsen, NS, Host, D and Frolich, A. Instruments to assess integrated care: A systematic review. International journal of integrated care, 2014; 14: e027 DOI: 10.5334/ijic.1184 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Minkman, M, Ahaus, K, Fabbricotti, I, Nabitz, U and Huijsman, R. A quality management model for integrated care: Results of a Delphi and Concept Mapping study. International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care/ISQua, 2009; 21(1): 66–75. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Valentijn, PP, Schepman, SM, Opheij, W and Bruijnzeels, MA. Understanding integrated care: A comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. International journal of integrated care, 2013; 13 DOI: 10.5334/ijic.886 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Valentijn, PP, Vrijhoef, HJ, Ruwaard, D, Boesveld, I, Arends, RY and Bruijnzeels, MA. Towards an international taxonomy of integrated primary care: A Delphi consensus approach. BMC family practice, 2015; 16: 64 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-015-0278-x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Wagner, EH. Chronic disease management: What will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Effective clinical practice: ECP, 1998; 1(1): 2–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Busetto, L, Luijkx, KG and Vrijhoef, HJM. Development of the COMIC Model for the comprehensive evaluation of integrated care interventions. International Journal of Care Coordination, 2016; 19(1–2): 47–58. DOI: 10.1177/2053434516661700 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Greenhalgh, T, Robert, G, MacFarlane, F, Bate, P and Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 2004; 82(4): 581–629. DOI: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Pawson, R and Tilley, N. Realistic Evaluation London: Sage; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Kodner, DL and Spreeuwenberg, C. Integrated care: Meaning, logic, applications, and implications—a discussion paper. International journal of integrated care, 2002; 2: e12 DOI: 10.5334/ijic.67 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Goodwin, N, Amelung, V and Stein, V. What is integrated care? In: Handbook Integrated Care. Amelung, VE, Stein, V, Goodwin, N, Balicer, R, Nolte, E and Suter, E (eds.), 2017; 3–24. Springer International Publishing, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56103-5_1 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. WHO. Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions. Building Blocks for Action. WHO Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data Global Report, 2002; Accessed at: www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/icccglobalreport.pdf on October 2015.
• 17. NCQA. Latest Evidence: Benefits of NCQA Patient-Centred Medical Home Recognition, 2016; Accessed at: www.ncqa.org on May 2017.
• 18. Suter, E, Oelke, ND, Adair, CD and Armitage, GD. Ten key principles for succesful health system integration. Healthcare Quarterly, 2009; 13(Spec No): 16–23. DOI: 10.12927/hcq.2009.21092 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Martinez-Gonzalez, NA, Berchtold, P, Ullman, K, Busato, A and Egger, M. Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: A meta-review. International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care/ISQua, 2014; 26(5): 561–570. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. van der Klauw, D, Molema, H, Grooten, L and Vrijhoef, H. Identification of mechanisms enabling integrated care for patients with chronic diseases: A literature review. International journal of integrated care, 2014; 14: e024 DOI: 10.5334/ijic.1127 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Calciolari, S and Ilinca, S. Unraveling care integration: Assessing its dimensions and antecedents in the Italian health system. Health Policy, 2016; 120: 129–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.12.002 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. PAHO. Integrated Health Service Delivery Networks: Concepts, Policy Options and a Road Map for Implementation in the Americas. Renewing Primary Health Care in the Americas, 2011; 4(SERIES). [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Borgermans, L, Goodwin, N, Vrijhoef, B, Ovretveit, J, Kiselev, J, Calciolari, S and Rosenmöller, M. Methodological Handbook for case studies. Project INTEGRATE WP 1 Case study methods and study coordination; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Schlette, S, Frølich, A and Martí, T. A diagnostic grid to assess, improve and enhance primary care. The Bellagio Model. Population-oriented Primary Care, 2009; Accessed at: www.hpm.org/Downloads/Events/Bellagio_Model_Berlin.pdf on November 2015.
• 25. Maruthappu, M, Hasan, A and Zeltner, T. Enablers and barriers in implementing integrated care. Health System & Reform, 2015; 1(4): 250–256. DOI: 10.1080/23288604.2015.1077301 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Powell Davies, G, Williams, AM, Larsen, K, Perkins, D, Roland, M and Harris, MF. Coordinating primary health care: An analysis of the outcomes of a systematic review. The Medical journal of Australia, 2008; 188(8 Suppl): S65–68. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Ouwens, M, Wollersheim, H, Hermens, R, Hulscher, M and Grol, R. Integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients: A review of systematic reviews. International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care/ISQua, 2005; 17(2):141–146. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Cameron, A, Lart, R, Bostock, L and Coomber, C. Factors that promote and hinder joint and integrated worwing between health and social care services. Health & Social Care in the Community, 2014; 22(3): 225–233. DOI: 10.1111/hsc.12057 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Wollersheim, H and Faber, M. Better affordable care; a framework to analyse andimprove integrated care delivery. International Journal of Care Pathways, 2012; 16: 92–97. DOI: 10.1177/2040402613480293 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (1.9 MB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2021

A literature-based study of patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward

• Abukari Kwame 1 &
• Pammla M. Petrucka 2  

BMC Nursing volume  20 , Article number:  158 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

473k Accesses

108 Altmetric

Metrics details

Providing healthcare services that respect and meet patients’ and caregivers’ needs are essential in promoting positive care outcomes and perceptions of quality of care, thereby fulfilling a significant aspect of patient-centered care requirement. Effective communication between patients and healthcare providers is crucial for the provision of patient care and recovery. Hence, patient-centered communication is fundamental to ensuring optimal health outcomes, reflecting long-held nursing values that care must be individualized and responsive to patient health concerns, beliefs, and contextual variables. Achieving patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient clinical interactions is complex as there are always institutional, communication, environmental, and personal/behavioural related barriers. To promote patient-centered care, healthcare professionals must identify these barriers and facitators of both patient-centered care and communication, given their interconnections in clinical interactions. A person-centered care and communication continuum (PC4 Model) is thus proposed to orient healthcare professionals to care practices, discourse contexts, and communication contents and forms that can enhance or impede the acheivement of patient-centered care in clinical practice.

Peer Review reports

Providing healthcare services that respect and meet patients’ and their caregivers’ needs are essential in promoting positive care outcomes and perceptions of quality of care, thus constituting patient-centered care. Care is “a feeling of concern for, or an interest in, a person or object which necessitates looking after them/it” [ 1 ]. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) noted that to provide patient-centered care means respecting and responding to individual patient’s care needs, preferences, and values in all clinical decisions [ 2 ]. In nursing care, patient-centered care or person-centered care must acknowledge patients’ experiences, stories, and knowledge and provide care that focuses on and respects patients’ values, preferences, and needs by engaging the patient more in the care process [ 3 ]. Healthcare providers and professionals are thus required to fully engage patients and their families in the care process in meaningful ways. The IOM, in its 2003 report on Health Professions Education , recognized the values of patient-centered care and emphasized that providing patient-centered care is the first core competency that health professionals’ education must focus on [ 4 ]. This emphasis underscored the value of delivering healthcare services according to patients’ needs and preferences.

Research has shown that effective communication between patients and healthcare providers is essential for the provision of patient care and recovery [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Madula et al. [ 6 ], in a study on maternal care in Malawi, noted that patients reported being happy when the nurses and midwives communicated well and treated them with warmth, empathy, and respect. However, other patients said poor communication by nurses and midwives, including verbal abuse, disrespect, or denial from asking questions, affected their perceptions of the services offered [ 6 ]. Similarly, Joolaee et al. [ 9 ] explored patients’ experiences of caring relationships in an Iranian hospital where they found that good communication between nurses and patients was regarded as “more significant than physical care” among patients.

According to Boykins [ 10 ], effective communication is a two-way dialogue between patients and care providers. In that dialogue, both parties speak and are listened to without interrupting; they ask questions for clarity, express their opinions, exchange information, and grasp entirely and understand what the others mean. Also, Henly [ 11 ] argued that effective communication is imperative in clinical interactions. He observed that health and illness affect the quality of life, thereby making health communication critical and that the “intimate and sometimes overwhelming nature of health concerns can make communicating with nurses and other healthcare providers very challenging” [ 11 ]. Furthermore, Henly [ 11 ] added that patient-centered communication is fundamental to ensuring optimal health outcomes, reflecting long-held nursing values that care must be individualized and responsive to patient health concerns. Given the prevalence of face-to-face and device-mediated communications and interactions in healthcare settings, we must explore and clarify who, what, where, when, why, and how interactions with individuals, families, and communities are receiving care and health services [ 11 ].

The value of effective communication in nurse-patient clinical interactions cannot be overemphasized, as “research has shown that communication processes are essential to more accurate patient reporting and disclosure” [ 12 ]. Respectful communication between nurses and patients can reduce uncertainty, enhance greater patient engagement in decision making, improve patient adherence to medication and treatment plans, increase social support, safety, and patient satisfaction in care [ 12 , 13 ]. Thus, effective nurse-patient clinical communication is essential to enhancing patient-centered care and positive care outcomes.

Patient-centered communication, also known as person-centered communication or client-centered communication, is defined as a process that invites and encourages patients and their families to actively participate and negotiate in decision-making about their care needs, as cited in [ 7 ]. Patient-centered communication is crucial in promoting patient-centered care and requires that patients and their caregivers engage in the care process. As McLean [ 14 ] observed, patient-centered care can be enhanced through patient-centered communication by valuing patients’ dignity and rights. Through open communication and collaboration, where information and care plans are shared among care providers, patients, and their families, care provision becomes patient-centered [ 14 ].

Given the interconnected nature of patient-centered care and communication, we must identify the barriers and enablers of patient-centered care and communication and proposed efficient ways to enhance that because patient-centered communication is essential in achieving patient-centered care. Our aim in this paper is to identify the barriers and facilitators of patient-centered care and communication and propose and present a patient-centered care and communication continuum (PC4) Model to explain how patient-centered care can be enhanced in nurse-patient clinical interactions. As Grant and Booth argued, critical reviews are often used to present, analyse, and synthesized research evidence from diverse sources, the outcome of which is a hypothesis or a model as an interpretation of existing data to enhance evidence-based practice [ 15 ]. Thus, this critical literature review study explores the questions: what are the barriers and facilitators of patient-centered care and how can patient-centered care be enhanced through effective clinical communication?

An earlier version of this study was submitted as part of author AK’s doctoral comprehensive exams in February 2021. An interdisciplinary doctoral committee recommended many of the included literature and the questions explored in this study based on the current discourse of patient-centered care advocated for in many healthcare facilities and in recognition of the universal healthcare access objective of the health sustainable development goal. Additional searches for literature were conducted between September and November 2020 using keywords such as barriers and facilitators of nurse-patient interaction, patient-centered care, patient-centered communication , and nurse-patient communication . Databases searched included CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar. Included studies in this critical review were empirical research on nurse-patient interactions in different care settings published in English and open access. All relevant articles were read, and their main findings relevant to our review questions were identified and organized into themes and subthemes discussed in this paper. Other published studies were read, and together with those that addressed the review question, a model was developed regarding how to enhance patient-centered care through effective communication.

Barriers to Patient-Centered Care and Communication

Nurses constitute a significant workforce of care providers whose practices can severely impact care outcomes (both positive and negative). Nurses spend much time with patients and their caregivers. As a result, positive nurse-patient and caregiver relationships are therapeutic and constitute a core component of care [ 9 , 13 ]. In many instances, nurses serve as translators or patients’ advocates, in addition to performing their primary care duties. Although good nurse-patient relationships positively impact nurse-patient communication and interaction, studies have shown that several factors impede these relationships with significant consequences on care outcomes and quality [ 6 , 16 , 17 ]. Thus, these barriers limit nurses’ and other care providers’ efforts to provide healthcare that meets patients’ and caregivers’ needs. We categorize the barriers to patient-centered care and communication into four kinds: institutional and healthcare system-related, communication-related, environment-related, and personal and behaviour-related barriers. Although these barriers are discussed in separate subheadings, they are interlinked in complex ways during clinical practice.

Institutional and Healthcare System Related Barriers

Many barriers to providing patient-centered care and communication during nurse-patient interactions emanate from healthcare institutional practices or the healthcare system itself. Some of these factors are implicated in healthcare policy or through management styles and strategies.

Shortage of nursing staff, high workload, burnout, and limited-time constituted one complex institutional and healthcare system-level barrier to effective care delivery [ 18 , 19 ]. For instance, Loghmani et al. [ 20 ] found that staffing shortages prevented nurses from having adequate time with patients and their caregivers in an Iranian intensive care unit. Limitations in nursing staff, coupled with a high workload, led to fewer interactions between nurses, patients, and caregivers. Similarly, Anoosheh et al. [ 16 ] found that heavy nursing workload was ranked highest as a limiting factor to therapeutic communication in nurse-patient interactions in Iran.

In a study on communication barriers in two hospitals affiliated with Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Norouzinia et al. [ 21 ] found that shortage of nurses, work overload, and insufficient time to interact with patients were significant barriers to effective nurse-patient interactions. Similar factors are identified as barriers to nurse-patient communication and interactions in other studies [ 13 , 16 , 18 ]. For instance, Amoah et al. [ 16 ] reported that nursing staff shortage and high workload were barriers to patient-centered care and therapeutic communication among Ghanaian nurses and patients. Amoah and colleagues reported a patient’s statement that:

[B]ecause there are few nurses at the ward, sometimes you would want a nurse to attend to you, but he or she might be working on another patient, so in such case, the nurse cannot divide him or herself into two to attend to you both [ 16 ].

Nurses and patients and their caregivers have noted that limited time affects nurse-patient interactions, communication, and care quality. Besides, Yoo et al. [ 22 ] reported that limited visiting hours affected communications between caregivers and nurses in a tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea. Since the caregivers had limited time to spend with patients, they had little knowledge about the intensive care unit and distrusted the nurses.

Although nursing staff shortage is a significant barrier to patient-centered care and communication that healthcare institutions and managers must know, some healthcare scholars have critique nurses’ complaints of time limitation. For instance, McCabe [ 7 ] argued that the quality of nurse-patient interactions is what matters and not the quantity of time spent with patients and their caregivers. McCabe maintained that “spending long periods with patients does not always result in positive nurse-patient relationships” [ 7 ]. He argued that implementing patient-centered care does not require additional time; hence, nurses’ perceptions of being too busy cannot excuse poor therapeutic communication during clinical interactions. Instead, nurses are encouraged to develop self-awareness, self-reflection, and a commitment to ensuring that patients receive the needed care.

Another institution-related barrier to patient-centered care and communication is the healthcare system’s emphasis on task-centered care. Care providers are more focused on completing care procedures than satisfying patients’ and caregivers’ needs and preferences. This barrier to patient-centered care and communication is acknowledged in several studies [ 7 , 14 , 20 , 22 , 23 ]. For example, McLean [ 14 ] studied dementia care in nursing homes in the United States. She found that patient-centered care and communication in one nursing home (Snow I) were severely affected when nurses, physicians, and care managers focused on completing tasks or observing care and institutional routines to the detriment of satisfying patients’ care needs. However, in the other care home (Snow II), patient-centered care was enhanced as nurses, physicians, and the care home managers focused on addressing patients’ needs and values rather than completing care routines and tasks.

Similarly, Yoo and colleagues [ 22 ] observed that nurse-patient communication was affected when the ICU nurses placed urgency on completing tasks linked directly to patients’ health (e.g., stabilizing vital signs) than communicating to addressed patients’ specific needs. This evidence shows that when nurses are more task-focused, patients and caregivers are treated as bodies and objects, on which medical and care practices must be performed to restore health. Research has shown that when nurses focus on task-oriented care, it becomes hard to provide holistic care to patients or teach and communicate with patients even when nurses are less busy [ 20 ].

Nursing managers and their management styles can affect patient-centered care and communication. Studies have revealed that the management styles that nursing managers implement can either facilitate or impede patient-centered care [ 14 , 22 ]. When nurse managers orient their nursing staff towards task-centered care practices, it affects nurse-patient interaction and communication. Moreover, when nurse managers fail to address their staff’s mental health needs and personal challenges, it influences how nurses attend to patients’ care needs. For example, nurses have indicated that nurse-patient communication is affected when nurse managers are unsupportive or unresponsive to their needs [ 20 ].

In a study exploring nursing and midwifery managers’ perspectives on obstacles to compassion giving and therapeutic care across 17 countries, Papadopoulos et al. [ 24 ] discovered that nurses and midwifery managers’ characteristics and experiences could facilitate or impede compassion and therapeutic interactions in nursing care. Negative personal attitudes, including selfishness, arrogance, self-centeredness, rudeness, lack of leadership skills, the desire for power, and feelings of superiority among nurses and midwifery managers, were obstacles to compassion building. The study further showed that managers who emphasize rules, tasks, and results do not prioritize relationship-building and see their staff as workers rather than team members [ 24 ]. Therefore, nurse managers and care administrators must monitor nurse-patient interaction and communication to address nurses’ concerns and support them, especially in resource-constrained and high patient turnover contexts [ 25 , 26 ].

Communication-Related Barriers

Effective communication is essential to providing patient-centered care. Studies have shown that poor communication between care providers and patients and their caregivers affects care outcomes and perceptions of care quality [ 7 , 16 , 27 , 28 ]. A consistent communication-related barrier in nurse-patient interaction is miscommunication, which often leads to misunderstandings between nurses, patients, and their families [ 20 ]. Other communication-related barriers include language differences between patients and healthcare providers [ 6 , 16 , 27 ], poor communication skills, and patients’ inability to communicate due to their health state, especially in ICU, dementia, or end-of-life care contexts [ 13 , 22 ]. For instance, in their maternity care study, Madula et al. [ 6 ] noted that language barriers significantly affected effective communication between nurses/midwives and expectant mothers. A patient in their study indicated that although many nurses were polite and communicated well, some nurses had challenges communicating with patients in the Chitumbuka language, which affected those nurses’ ability to interact effectively with patients [ 6 ].

Furthermore, Norouzinia et al. [ 21 ] asserted that effective communication could not be established when nurses and patients have a language difference. Moreover, the meanings of certain non-verbal communication acts (e.g., head nodding, eye gaze, touch) can invoke different interpretations across different cultures, which could impede the interactions between patients and nurses. Even in healthcare contexts where nurses and patients speak the same language, “differences in vocabulary, rate of speaking, age, background, familiarity with medical technology, education, physical capability, and experience can create a huge cultural and communication chasm” between nurses and patients [ 12 ]. In ICU and other similar care settings, nurses find it difficult to effectively communicate with patients because the mechanical ventilators made it hard for patients to talk [ 22 ].

To overcome the communication-related barriers, healthcare institutions must make it a responsibility to engage translators and interpreters to facilitate nurse-patient interactions where a language barrier exists. Moreover, nurses working in ICU and other similar settings should learn and employ alternative forms of communication to interact with patients.

Environment-Related Barriers

The environment of the care setting can impact nurse-patient communication and the resulting care. Thus, “good health care experiences start with a welcoming environment” [ 29 ]. Mastors believed that even though good medicine and the hands working to provide care and healing to the sick and wounded are essential, we must not “forget the small things: a warm smile, an ice chip, a warm blanket, a cool washcloth. A pillow flipped to the other side and a boost in bed” [ 29 ]. The environment-related barriers are obstacles within the care setting that inhibit nurse-patient interaction and communication and may include a noisy surrounding, unkept wards, and beds, difficulties in locating places, and navigating care services. Noisy surroundings, lack of privacy, improper ventilation, heating, cooling, and lighting in specific healthcare units can affect nurse-patient communication. These can prevent patients from genuinely expressing their healthcare needs to nurses, which can subsequently affect patient disclosure or make nursing diagnoses less accurate [ 13 , 18 , 21 ]. For instance, Amoah et al. [ 16 ] revealed that an unconducive care environment, including noisy surroundings and poor ward conditions, affected patients’ psychological states, impeding nurse-patient relationships and communication. Moreover, when care services are not well-coordinated, new patients and their caregivers find it hard to navigate the care system (e.g., locating offices for medical tests and consultations), which can constrain patient-centered care and communication.

Reducing the environment-related barriers will require making the care setting tidy/clean, less noisy, and coordinating care services in ways that make it easy for patients and caregivers to access. Coordinating and integrating care services, making care services accessible, and promoting physical comfort are crucial in promoting patient-centered care, according to Picker’s Eight Principles of Patient-Centered Care [ 30 ].

Personal and Behaviour Related Barriers

The kind of nurse-patient relationships established between nurses and patients and their caregivers will affect how they communicate. Since nurses and patients may have different demographic characteristics, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, beliefs, and worldviews about health and illnesses, nurses’, patients’, and caregivers’ attitudes can affect nurse-patient communication and care outcomes. For instance, differences in nurses’ and patients’ cultural backgrounds and belief systems have been identified as barriers to therapeutic communication and care [ 12 , 13 , 21 ]. Research shows that patients’ beliefs and cultural backgrounds affected their communication with nurses in Ghana [ 16 ]. These scholars found that some patients refused a blood transfusion, and Muslim patients refused female nurses to attend to them because of their religious beliefs [ 16 ]. Further, when nurses, patients, or their caregivers have misconceptions about one another due to past experiences, dissatisfaction about the care provided, or patients’ relatives and caregivers unduly interfere in the care process, nurse-patient communication and patient-centered care were affected [ 16 , 21 ].

Similarly, nurse-patient communication was affected when patients or caregivers failed to observe nurses’ recommendations or abuse nurses due to misunderstanding [ 20 ], while patients’ bad attitudes or disrespectful behaviours towards nurses can inhibit nurses’ ability to provide person-centered care [ 31 ]. The above-reviewed studies provided evidence on how patients’ and caregivers’ behaviours can affect nurses’ ability to communicate and deliver patient-centered care.

On the other hand, nurses’ behaviours can also profoundly affect communication and care outcomes in the nurse-patient dyad. When nurses disrespect, verbally abuse (e.g., shouting at or scolding), and discriminate against patients based on their social status, it affects nurse-patient communication, care outcomes, and patient disclosure [ 6 , 32 ]. For instance, Al-Kalaldeh et al. [ 18 ] believe that nurse-patient communication is challenged when nurses become reluctant to hear patients’ feelings and expressions of anxiety. When nurses ignore patients’ rights to share ideas and participate in their care planning, such denials may induce stress, discomfort, lack of trust in nurses, thereby leading to less satisfaction of care [ 18 ].

Furthermore, when nurses fail to listen to patients’ and caregivers’ concerns, coerce patients to obey their rules and instructions [ 16 , 17 , 20 ], or fail to provide patients with the needed information, nurse-patient communication and patient-centered care practices suffer. To illustrate, in Ddumba-Nyanzia et al.‘s study on communication between HIV care providers and patients, a patient remarked that: “I realized no matter how much I talked to the counselor, she was not listening. She was only hearing her point of view and nothing else, [and] I was very upset” [ 17 ]. This quote indicates how care provider attitudes can constrain care outcomes. Due to high workload, limited time, poor remunerations, and shortage of personnel, some nurses can develop feelings of despair, emotional detachment, and apathy towards their job, which can lead to low self-esteem or poor self-image, with negative consequences on nurse-patient interactions [ 13 , 18 ].

Given the significance of effective communication on care, overcoming the above personal and behaviour related barriers to patient-centered care and communication is crucial. Nurses, patients, and caregivers need to reflect on the consequences of their behaviours on the care process. Thus, overcoming these barriers begins with embracing the facilitators of patient-centered care and communication, which we turn to in the next section.

Facilitators of patient-centered care and communication

Patient-centered care and communication can be facilitated in several ways, including building solid nurse-patient relationships.

First, an essential facilitator of patient-centered care and communication is overcoming practical communication barriers in the nurse-patient dyad. Given the importance of communication in healthcare delivery, nurses, patients, caregivers, nursing managers, and healthcare administrators need to ensure that effective therapeutic communication is realized in the care process and becomes part of the care itself. Studies have shown that active listening among care providers is essential to addressing many barriers to patient-centered care and communication [ 7 , 13 ]. Although handling medical tasks promptly in the care process is crucial, the power of active listening is critical, meaningful, and therapeutic [ 22 ]. By listening to patients’ concerns, nurses can identify patients’ care needs and preferences and address their fears and frustrations.

Another facilitator of patient-centered care is by understanding patients and their unique needs [ 25 ], showing empathy and attending attitudes [ 7 , 13 ], expressing warmth and respect [ 22 ], and treating patients and caregivers with dignity and compassion as humans. For instance, McCabe [ 7 ] noted that attending, which obligates nurses to demonstrate that they are accessible and ready to listen to patients, is a patient-centered care process; a fundamental requirement for nurses to show genuineness and empathy, despite the high workload. Showing empathy, active listening, respect, and treating patients with dignity are core to nursing and care, and recognized in the Code of Ethics for Nurses [ 33 ], and further emphasized in the ongoing revision of the Code of Ethics for nurses [ 34 ].

Besides, engaging patients and caregivers in the care process through sharing information, inviting their opinion, and collaborating with them constitutes another facilitator of patient-centered care and communication. When patients and caregivers are engaged in the care process, misunderstandings and misconceptions are minimized. When information is shared, patients and caregivers learn more about their health conditions and the care needed. As McLean [ 14 ] argued, ensuring open communication between care providers and patients and their families is essential to enhancing patient-centered care. Conflicts ensue when patients or their families are denied information or involvement in the care process. As a result, the Harvard Medical School [ 30 ] identified patient engagement, information sharing, and nurse-patient collaboration during care as essential patient-centered care principles.

Finally, health policy must be oriented towards healthcare practices and management to facilitate patient-centered care and communication. These policies, at a minimum, can involve changes in management styles within healthcare institutions, where nurse managers and healthcare administrators reflect on nursing and care practices to ensure that the Code of Ethics of Nurses and patients’ rights are fully implemented. Resource constraints, staff shortages, and ethical dilemmas mainly affect care practices and decision-making. Nonetheless, if patients are placed at the center of care and treated with dignity and respect, most of the challenges and barriers of patient-centered care will diminish. Empowering practicing nurses, equipping them with interpersonal communication skills through regular in-service training, supporting them to overcome their emotional challenges, and setting boundaries during nurse-patient interactions will enhance patient-centered care practices.

In line with the above discussion, Camara et al. [ 25 ] identify three core dimensions that nurses, patients, and caregivers must observe to enhance patient-centered care: treating the patient as a person and seeing the care provider as a person and a confidant. Regarding the first dimension, care providers must welcome patients, listen to them, share information with them, seek their consent, and show them respect when providing care. The second dimension requires that the healthcare provider be seen and respected as a person, and negative perceptions about care providers must be demystified. According to Camara et al. [ 25 ], care providers must not overemphasize their identities as experts but rather establish good relationships with patients to understand patients’ personal needs and problems. Lastly, patients and caregivers must regard care providers as confidants who build and maintain patients’ trust and encourage patients’ participation in care conversations. With this dimension, patients and caregivers must know that nurses and other care providers have the patient at heart and work to meet their care needs and recovery process.

Camara et al.‘s [ 25 ] three dimensions are essential and position patients, their caregivers, and nurses as partners who must engage in dialogic communication to promote patient-centered care. As a result, effective communication, education, and increased health literacy among patients and caregivers will be crucial in that direction.

Enhancing Patient-Centered Care and Communication: A Proposed Model

Nursing care practices that promote patient-centered communication will directly enhance patient-centered care, as patients and their caregivers will actively engage in the care process. To enhance patient-centered communication, we propose person-centered care and communication continuum (PC4) as a guiding model to understand patient-centered communication, its pathways, and what communication and care practices healthcare professionals must implement to achieve person-centered care. In this PC4 Model, we emphasize the person instead of the patient because they are a person before becoming a patient. Moreover, the PC4 Model is supposed to apply to all persons associated with patient care; thus, respect for the dignity of their personhood is crucial.

Although much is written about patient-centered communication in the healthcare literature, there is a gap regarding its trajectory and what communication content enhances patient-centered communication. Also, little is known about how different clinical discourse spaces influence communication and its content during nurse-patient clinical interactions. Using evidence from Johnsson et al. [ 3 ], Murira et al. [ 23 ], and Liu et al. [ 35 ], among other studies, we outline the components of the PC4 Model and how different discourse spaces in the clinical setting and the content of communication impact patient-centered care and communication.

The proposed PC4 Model in this paper has three unbounded components based on the purpose of and how communication is performed among care providers, patients, and their caregivers. Figure  1 illustrates the PC4 Model, its features, and trajectory.

A Person-Centered Care and Communication Continuum (PC4 Model)

Task-Centered Communication

At the lowest end of the PC4 Model is task-centered communication. Here, the care provider’s role is to complete medical tasks as fast as possible with little or no communication with the patient and their caregivers. Patients and caregivers are treated as bodies or objects whose disease symptoms need to be studied, identified, recorded, treated, or cured. As Johnsson et al. [ 3 ] observed, communication content at this stage is mainly biomedically oriented, where nurses and other healthcare professionals focus on the precise medical information (e.g., history taking, medical examination, test results, medication, etc.) about the patient. With a task-centered orientation, nurses make journal entries about their patients’ disease state and ensure that treatment plans, diagnostic tests, and medical prescriptions are completed. Communication at this stage is often impersonal or rigid (see [ 23 ] for details). Care providers may address patients and their caregivers by using informal attributes (e.g., bed 12, the woman in the red shirt, card 8, etc.), thereby ignoring patients’ and caregivers’ personal and unique identities. Patients’ and caregivers’ nonverbal communication signs are mostly overlooked.

Motivations for task-centered communication can be attributed to time limitation, high workload, and staff shortage, thereby pushing nurses and other care providers to reach as many patients as possible. Moreover, the healthcare system’s orientation towards and preference for biomedically-focused care seems to favour task-centered communication [ 7 , 14 ].

Depending on the clinical discourse space under which patient-provider interactions occur, different forms of communication are employed. Clinical discourse spaces can be public (e.g., in the ward, patient bedside), private (e.g., consulting rooms, medical test labs, nurse staff station, etc.), or semi-private (e.g., along the corridor) [ 35 ]. In these clinical discourse spaces, nurse-patient communication can be uninformed (patients or caregivers are not informed about patients’ care conditions or why specific data and routines are performed). It can be non-private (others can hear what the nurse and patient are talking about) or authoritative (care providers demonstrate power and control and position themselves as experts) [ 23 ]. Finally, in task-centered communication, healthcare providers often use medical jargon or terminologies [ 3 ] since the goal of communication is not to engage the patient in the process. Usually, patients or their caregivers are not allowed to ask questions, or their questions get ignored or receive superficial, incomprehensible responses.

Process-Centered Communication

Process-centered communication is an intermediate stage on the continuum, which could slip back into the task-centered or leap forward into person-centered communication. Through process-centered communication, care providers make an effort to know patients and their caregivers as they perform care routines. Care providers ask patients or their caregivers questions to understand the care conditions but may not encourage patients or caregivers to express their thoughts about their care needs. Patients and caregivers are recognized as persons with uniques care needs but may not have the agency to influence the care process. Care providers may chit-chat with patients or their caregivers to pass the time as they record patients’ medical records or provide care. Unlike task-centered communication, there is informative and less authoritative communication between nurses and patients and their caregivers. The goal of process-centered communication could be a mixture of instrumental and relational, with less display of power and control by nurses.

Person-Centered Communication

This is the highest point of the PC4 Model, where patient-centered care is actualized. At this stage of the communication continuum, patients and caregivers are treated as unique persons with specific care needs and are seen as collaborators in the care process. As McLean [ 14 ] observed, caregiving becomes a transactional relationship between the care provider and receiver at the person-centered stage of the continuum. The care itself becomes intersubjective, a mutual relational practice, and an ongoing negotiation for care providers and receivers [ 14 ].

The content of communication at this stage of the continuum is both “personal” and “explanatory” [ 3 ]. Nurses and other healthcare providers create meaningful relationships with patients and their caregivers, understand patients’ concerns, needs, and problems, use open-ended questions to encourage patients or caregivers to express their thoughts and feelings about the care situation. Nurses and other healthcare professionals explain care routines, patients’ health conditions, and management plans in lay language to patients and caregivers through person-centered communication. Accomplishing this level includes employing alternative forms of communication to meet the needs of intensive care unit patients, deaf patients, and ventilated and intubated patients. For instance, it has been shown that “deaf people […] frequently do not have access to clear and efficient communication in the healthcare system, which deprives them of critical health information and qualified health care” [ 36 ]. Empathetic communication practices, including active listening, showing genuine interest in patients’ care, and respect and warmth, become a significant part of nursing care [ 3 , 7 , 14 , 22 ].

Different communication strategies are employed based on the care situation and context. Chit-chatting, as a form of personal communication [ 3 ], use of humor as a communication strategy [ 7 , 8 ], and even maintaining silence [ 28 ] are essential in enhancing person-centered care and communication. Both care providers and patients or their caregivers use relationship-building and -protecting humor (see [ 28 ] for details) to address difficult situations in the care process.

Implications of the PC4 Model for Nursing Practice

Given the values of effective communication in nurse-patient interactions and care outcomes, nurses and other healthcare providers must ensure that they develop therapeutic relationships with patients, their families, and caregivers to promote person-centered care and communication. Achieving that begins with knowing and reflecting on the barriers of therapeutic communication and ways to minimize them. The PC4 Model draws nurses and all healthcare providers’ attention to patient-centered care pathways and how effective communication is necessary. Healthcare professionals, including nurses, must be aware of how their communication orientation–––either oriented toward completing tasks, following care processes or toward addressing patients’ and their caregivers’ needs––can impact patient-centered care. Healthcare providers must observe the care context, patients’ unique situations, their non-verbal language and action, and whether they belong to historically marginalized groups or cultures.

Mastors [ 29 ] has offered healthcare providers some guidance to reflect on as they communicate and interact with patients and caregivers. Thus, (a) instead of asking patients, “What’s the matter?“ care providers must consider asking them, “What’s important to you?“ With this question, the patient is given a voice and empowered to contribute to their own care needs. Care providers should (b) check with patients in the waiting room to update patients whose waiting time has been longer than usual, based on the care context. They should also (c) try to remember their conversations with patients to build on them during subsequent interactions. This continuity can be enhanced by nurse managers reexamining how they deploy care providers to patients. The same nurse can be assigned to the same patients for the duration of the patient’s stay to help patients feel valued and visible [ 29 ].

Knowledge of cultural competence, sensitivity, humility, and interpersonal communication skills will help achieve and implement the PC4 Model. As Cuellar [ 37 ] argues, “[h]umility is about understanding and caring for all people [and] being empathetic.“ Cultural competence is a “dynamic process of acquiring the ability to provide effective, safe, and quality care to the patients through considering their different cultural aspects” [ 38 ]. The concept of cultural competence entails “cultural openness, awareness, desire, knowledge and sensitivity” during care [ 39 ]. It demands that care providers respect and tailor care to align with patients’ and caregivers’ values, needs, practices, and expectations, based on care and moral ethics and understanding [ 39 ]. Active listening and showing compassion as therapeutic relationship-building skills are essential, and continuous education and mentorship will be crucial to developing these skills among healthcare providers.

We invite qualitative and quantitative studies, especially on language use and communication strategies, to explore and evaluate the PC4 Model. Providing in-depth and experiential data on ways to increase its effectiveness as a tool to guide healthcare providers is highly desired. More knowledge can support healthcare providers in offering evidence-based patient-centered care in different healthcare settings and units.

Conclusions

Effective communication is an essential factor in nurse-patient interactions and a core component of nursing care. When communication in the nurse-patient dyad is patient-centered, it becomes therapeutic. It allows for trust and mutual respect in the care process, thereby promoting care practices that address patients’ and caregivers’ needs, concerns, and preferences. We have identified the barriers and facilitators of patient-centered care and communication and proposed a person-centered care and communication continuum (PC4 Model) to demonstrate how patient-centered communication intersects with patient-centered care.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Intensive Care Unit

Institution of Medicine

Person-Centered Care and Communication Continuum

Etheredge HR. “Hey sister! Where’s my kidney?“ Exploring ethics and communication in organ transplantation in Gauteng, South Africa, Ph.D. dissertation, Johannesburg. University of the Witwatersrand; 2015.

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press; 2001.

Johnsson A, Wagman P, Boman A, Pennbrant S. What are they talking about? Content of the communication exchanges between nurses, patients and relatives in a department of medicine for older people: An ethnographic study. J Clin Nurs. 2018 Apr;27(7–9):e1651-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14315 .

Long KA. The Institute of Medicine report on health professions education: A bridge to quality. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2003 Nov;4(4):259–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154403258304 .

Crawford T, Candlin S, Roger P. (2017). New perspectives on understanding cultural diversity in nurse-patient communication. Collegian, 2017 Feb 1;24(1):63 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2015.09.001 .

Madula P, Kalembo WF, Yu H, Kaminga CA. Healthcare provider-patient communication: A qualitative study of women’s perceptions during childbirth. Reprod Health. 2018 Dec;15(135):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0580-x .

McCabe C. Nurse-patient communication: An exploration of patients’ experiences. J Clin Nurs. 2004 Jan;13(1):41–9.

Schöpf AC, Martin GS, Keating MA. Humor as a communication strategy in provider-patient communication in a chronic care setting. Qual Health Res. 2017 Feb;27(3):374–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315620773 .

Joolaee S, Joolaei A, Tschudin V, Bahrani N, Nikbakht NA. Caring relationship: the core component of patients’ rights practice as experienced by patients and their companions. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2010;3(4):1–7.

Google Scholar  

Boykins AD. Core communication competences in patient-centered care. The ABNF J. 2014 Apr 1;25(2):40 – 5.

Henly SJ. Health communication research for nursing science and practice. Nurs Res [Editorial] 2016:257–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000171 .

Ruben BD. Communication theory and health communication practice: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Health Commun. 2016 Jan 2;31(1):1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.923086 .

Bello P. Effective communication in nursing practice: A literature review. BSc Nursing Thesis. Arcada; 2017. Available at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84798372.pdf Accessed 20 Jan 2021.

McLean A. The person in dementia: A study of nursing home care in the US. Toronto, University of Toronto Press; 2007.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libraries J. 2009;26:91–108. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Amoah KMV, Anokye R, Boakye SD, Acheampong E, Budu-Ainooson A, Okyere E, Kumi-Boateng G, Yeboah C, Afriyie OJ. A qualitative assessment of perceived barriers to effective therapeutic communication among nurses and patients. BMC Nurs. 2019 Dec;18(4)1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0328-0 .

Ddumba-Nyanzia I, Kaawa-Mafigiria D, Johannessen H. Barriers to communication between HIV care providers (HCPs) and women living with HIV about childbearing: A qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2016 May 1:99(5):754–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.11.023 .

Al-Kalaldeh M, Amro N, Qtait M. Barriers to effective nurse-patient communication in the emergency department. Emerg Nurse. 2021 Mar 2;29(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.7748/en.2020.e1969 .

Sethi D, Rani MK. Communication barrier in health care setting as perceived by nurses and patient. Int J Nurs Educ 2017 Oct. 2016;9(4):30. doi: https://doi.org/10.5958/j.2320-8651.2.1.001 .

Loghmani L, Borhani F, Abbaszadeh A. Factors affecting the nurse-patients’ family communication in intensive care unit of Kerman: A qualitative study. J Caring Sci. 2014 Mar;3(1):67–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.5681/jcs.2014.008 .

Norouzinia R, Aghabarari M, Shiri M, Karimi M, Samami E. Communication barriers perceived by nurses and patients. Glob J Health Sci. 2016 Jun;8(6):65–4. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n6p65 .

Yoo HJ, Lim OB, Shim JL. Critical care nurses’ communication experiences with patients and families in an intensive care unit: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2020 Jul 9;15(7):e0235694. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235694 .

Murira N, Lützen K, Lindmark G, Christensson K. Communication patterns between healthcare providers and their clients at an antenatal clinic in Zimbabwe. Health Care Women Int. 2003 Feb 1;24(2):83 – 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330390170060 .

Papadopoulos I, Lazzarino R, Koulouglioti C, Aagard M, Akman O, Alpers L-M, Apostolara P, Araneda Bernal J, Biglete-Pangilinan S, Eldar-Regev O, Gonzalez-Gil MT, Kouta C, Zorba A. Obstacles to compassion-giving among nursing and midwifery managers: An international study. Int Nurs Rev. 2020 Aug;11:1–13.

Camara BS, Belaid L, Manet H, Kolie D, Guilard E, Bigirimana T, Delamou A. What do we know about patient-provider interactions in sub-Saharan Africa? A scoping review. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;88(88):1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.37.88.24009 .

Kwame A, Petrucka PM. Communication in nurse-patient interaction in healthcare settings in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review. Int J Afr Nurs Sci. 2020 Jan 1;12:100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2020.100198 .

Anoosheh M, Zarkhah S, Faghihzadeh S, Vaismoradi M. Nurse-patient communication barriers in Iranian nursing. Int Nurs Rev. 2009 Jun;56(2):243–9.

Vuković M, Gvozdenović BS, Stamatović-Gajić B, Ilić M, Gajić T. Development and evaluation of the nurse quality of communication with patient questionnaire. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2010;138(1–2):79–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH1002079V .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mastors P. (2018). What do patients want, need, and have the right to expect? Nurs Adm Q. 2018 Jul 1;42(3):192-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000297 .

Harvard Medical School. The Eight Principles of Patient Centered Care; 2015 Nov 18. Available from OneView: https://www.oneviewhealthcare.com/the-eight-principles-of-patient-centered-care/ Accessed 28 Dec 2020.

White J, Phakoe M, Rispel LC. ‘Practice what you preach’: Nurses’ perspectives on the Code of Ethics and Service Pledge in five South African hospitals. Glob Health Action. 2015 Dec 1;8(1):26341. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.26341 .

Kruger L-M, Schoombee C. The other side of caring: abuse in a South African maternity ward. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2010 Feb 1;28(1):84–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830903294979 .

International Council of Nurses. ICN Code of Ethics for Nurses; 2012. Available from www.icn.ch/images/stories/documents/about/icncode_english.pdf . Accessed 20 Dec 2020.

Stievano A, Tschudin V. The ICN code of ethics for nurses: A time for revision. Nurs Health Policy Perspect. 2019 Jun;66(2):154–6.

Liu W, Manias E, Gerdtz M. Medication communication during ward rounds on medical wards: Power relations and spatial practices. Health 2012 Mar. 2012;17(2):113–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312447257 .

Hoglind TA. Healthcare language barriers affect deaf people, too. 2018 Oct 11. Retrieved from Boston University [BU] School of Public Health: Available from https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2018/healthcare-language-barriers-affect-deaf-people-too/ Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Cuellar NG. Humility. A concept in cultural sensitivity. JTranscult Nurs [Editorial]. 2018 Apr 26; 29(4):317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659618772384 .

Sharifi N, Adib-Hajbaghery M, Najafi M. Cultural competence in nursing: A concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Nov 1;99(103386):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103386 .

Henderson S, Horne M, Hills R, Kendall E. Cultural competence in healthcare in the community: A concept analysis. Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Jul;26(4):590–603. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12556 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the first author’s doctoral committee members for their valuable comments, suggestions, and critique of an earlier version of this paper. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for the insightful comments and suggestions that have helped us improve the study’s quality.

Authors' information

Abukari Kwame is a Ph.D. candidate in Interdisciplinary Studies in the College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, University of Saskatchewan, interested in patients' rights in nurse-patient clinical communications and interactions in the hospital setting. He holds two Master of Philosophy degrees in Indigenous Studies and English Linguistics. Abukari's research interests include language use in social interaction, health communication, First/Second language acquisition, African traditional medical knowledge, and Indigenous and qualitative research methodologies.

Pammla M. Petrucka is a professor in Nursing and has international research experience with many of her graduate students from Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. Pammla has published extensively in the field of nursing. Her research interests are vast, including child and maternal health, Indigenous peoples' health, global health, and vulnerable populations, with extensive experiences in qualitative research and indigenous research methodologies. Pammla is co-editor of the BMC Nursing journal and a reviewer for many other academic journals.

The authors have not received any funding for the conduct, preparation, and publication of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Abukari Kwame

College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Regina Campus, Regina, Canada

Pammla M. Petrucka

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors conceived the topic. PMP recommended the literature, AK searched and added more sources, and drafted the paper. PMP reviewed the paper for intellectual content. Both AK and PMP read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abukari Kwame .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kwame, A., Petrucka, P.M. A literature-based study of patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward. BMC Nurs 20 , 158 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00684-2

Download citation

Received : 05 May 2021

Accepted : 18 August 2021

Published : 03 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00684-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Patient-centered care
• Therapeutic communication
• Nurse-patient interactions
• Clinical discourse space
• Patient-centered care and communication continuum

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Keeping pace with the healthcare transformation: a literature review and research agenda for a new decade of health information systems research

Nadine ostern, guido perscheid, caroline reelitz, jürgen moormann.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Responsible Editor: Shengnan Han

Corresponding author.

Received 2020 Dec 11; Accepted 2021 May 26; Issue date 2021.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, major and lasting changes are occuring in healthcare structures, impacting people's experiences and value creation in all aspects of their lives. Information systems (IS) research can support analysing and anticipating resulting effects.

The purpose of this study is to examine in what areas health information systems (HIS) researchers can assess changes in healthcare structures and, thus, be prepared to shape future developments.

A hermeneutic framework is applied to conduct a literature review and to identify the contributions that IS research makes in analysing and advancing the healthcare industry.

We draw an complexity theory by borrowing the concept of 'zooming-in and out', which provides us with a overview of the current, broad body of research in the HIS field. As a result of analysing almost 500 papers, we discovered various shortcomings of current HIS research.

Contribution

We derive future pathways and develop a research agenda that realigns IS research with the transformation of the healthcare industry already under way.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12525-021-00484-1.

Keywords: Healthcare, Health information systems research, Research agenda

Introduction

Particularly since the last decade, IT has opened up new opportunities for ‘ehealth’ through telemedicine and remote patient monitoring, alongside potential improvements in the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of health care (Chiasson & Davidson, 2004 ). Accordingly, health information systems (HIS) research has come to focus on how healthcare organizations invest in and then assimilate HIS, looking in particular at the impact of digitalization on healthcare costs, healthcare quality, and patient privacy (Chen et al., 2019 ; Park, 2016 ).

Less attention has been paid to issues such as mobile health, health information interchange, digital health communities, and services that change customer expectations and may lead to major disruptions (Chen et al., 2019 ; Park, 2016 ). These topics, however, are becoming increasingly important due to the penetration of the user and health market by external players, especially tech companies, providing services such as fitness trackers, and surveillance software for patient monitoring in hospitals (Gantori et al., 2020 ). Modern IT, thus, becomes a catalyst to provide greater operational efficiency, offering new possibilities for tech companies to build new health-centred business models and services (Park, 2016 ).

The ways in which tech companies are entering the healthcare industry can be seen amid the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is pushing healthcare systems to the edge of their capacities (Worldbank, 2020 ). In this extraordinary condition, the pandemic has provided an additional opportunity for tech companies that were hitherto not active or not allowed to enter the healthcare industry (Gantori et al., 2020 ).

We are currently seeing how entering the healthcare market is actually taking place, particularly in the USA, where tech companies are increasingly offering services to help address some of the problems associated with Covid-19. Google’s subsidiary Verily, for instance, facilitates the automation of coronavirus symptom screening and provides actionable, up-to-date information that supports community-based decision-making (Landi, 2020 ). Although the collaboration with Verily assists the US government in tracking cases to identify the spread of the virus, it is reasonable to suggest that Verily probably did not launch the screening tool out of altruism. In fact, to receive preliminary screening results via the Verily app, citizens have to log into their personal Google account (Greenwood, 2020 ). This allows Verily to gain immense value by aggregating huge, structured data sets and analyse them to come up with new health services, such as better tools for disease detection, new data infrastructures, and insurance offerings that – for better or for worse – may outplay current healthcare providers and even disrupt whole healthcare ecosystems (CB Insights, 2018 ). Similarly, Amazon has started to provide cloud space through Amazon Web Services to store health surveillance data for the Australian government’s tracing app (Tillett, 2020 ), and Amazon Care, a division initially responsible for handling internal staff care needs, now cooperates with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to distribute Covid-19 testing kits to US residents (Lee & Nilsson, 2020 ).

Looking at information systems (IS) researchers’ previous assessments of state-of-the-art healthcare-related IS literature reveals that most scholars seem to have little or no concern for the beginning of those potentially long-lasting changes that are occurring in the healthcare industry (Chen et al., 2019 ). This is worrying, considering that it is already apparent that the years ahead will be marked by economic volatility and social upheaval as well as direct and indirect health consequences, including sweeping transformations in many of the world’s healthcare systems.

While it is clear that recent developments and the push of tech and platform companies into the healthcare sector can significantly improve the quality of life for billions of people around the world, it will be accompanied by serious challenges for healthcare industries, governments, and individuals (Park, 2016 ). Technological advances are, for instance, giving rise to a plethora of smart, connected products and services, combining sensors, software, data, analytics, and connectivity in all kinds of ways, which in turns leads to a restructuring of health industry boundaries and the empowerment of novel actors, especially tech and platform companies such as IBM, Google, and Amazon (Park, 2016 ).

Observing those changes, we need to develop a general understanding of long-term trends such as digitalization and blurring industry boundaries. As the pandemic is only an amplifier of longer-lasting trends, it is likely that the consequences and exogenous effects on the healthcare industry will go far beyond the time of the current pandemic. Given these observations, we wonder whether the IS research domain is ready to capture, understand, and accompany these developments, which require a holistic view of the healthcare industry, its structures, and the interdependencies between incumbents and new entrants. Thus, we argue that it is now time to develop a more comprehensive understanding of these developments and to determine the role that IS research can play by asking: How can we prepare HIS research to capture and anticipate current developments in the healthcare industry?

To find answers to this question, our paper provides a literature overview of HIS research by ‘zooming in and zooming out’ (Gaskin et al., 2014 ) and by drawing on complexity theory (Benbya et al., 2020 ). Since a healthcare system, like the industry as a whole, can be understood as a complex, digital socio-technical system (Kernick & Mitchell, 2009 ; Therrien et al., 2017 ), zooming in and zooming out is a way to view, capture, and theorize the causes, dynamics, and consequences of a system’s complexity. Complex systems are characterized by adaptiveness, openness (Cilliers, 2001 ), and the diversity of actors and their mutual dependency in the system, meaning that outcomes and research span various levels within these systems, although the boundaries of socio-technical systems are elusive. Assuming that HIS research is just as complex as the socio-technical system investigated, we first zoom in, focusing on concrete research outcomes across levels (i.e., what we can actually observe). Zooming in is followed by zooming out, which means abstracting from the concrete level and embracing the strengths and disparities of overall HIS research on a higher level in which concrete research outcomes are embedded (Benbya et al., 2020 ). Using this approach, we can capture and understand the complexity of HIS research without losing sight of concrete research issues and topics that drive research in this field.

To do this, we chose a hermeneutic framework to guide us in a thorough review and interpretation of HIS literature and lead us to the following overarching observations: (i) The literature review determines the unique contribution that IS research plays in analysing and advancing the healthcare industry. However, it also shows that we are hardly prepared to take up current developments and anticipate their consequences. (ii) The reason for this unpreparedness is that we currently neglect the ecosystem perspective and thus ignore holistic approaches to resolve the striking number of interrelated issues in HIS research. (iii) Based on the unique insights of this literature review, our paper provides a research agenda in which we use complexity theory to discuss the consequences of current developments. This theory assists IS researchers not only to better understand developments and implications thereof for the healthcare industry (and thus HIS research) but also to create a meaningful impact on the future of this industry. Since we have limited our research explicitly to the IS domain, our results may not be generally applicable to other healthcare research domains and we do not claim to provide an overview of the literature in the field of HIS research. However, while IS researchers cannot solve the pandemic directly, preparing them by providing a new research agenda will support them in developing concepts and applications, thereby helping them to overcome the negative effects of the pandemic. In our opinion, it is particularly important that IS research, and especially HIS-related research, obtains a deeper understanding of the needed transformation that is caused by digitalization and the emergence of new players catalysed by the current pandemic.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section is concerned with the hermeneutic framework used to conduct the systematic literature review. After explaining the hermeneutic approach and the research steps, we elaborate on the key findings by zooming in; that is, we focus on the key results that emerge from analysing and interpreting the literature for each of the phases defined in the course of the literature sorting process. We then concentrate on zooming out, emphasizing the patterns and interdependencies across phases, which helps us determine the state of HIS research. The results of both parts of the literature review – i.e., zooming in and zooming out (Benbya et al., 2020 ; Gaskin et al., 2014 ) – support us in identifying strengths, as well as drawbacks, in HIS research. On this basis, we develop a research agenda that provides future directions for how HIS research can evolve to anticipate the impending transformation of the healthcare industry.

Literature review: a hermeneutic approach

To answer our research question, we conducted a literature review based on hermeneutic understanding. In particular, we followed Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic ( 2014 ). They proposed a hermeneutic philosophy as a theoretical foundation and methodological approach that focuses on the inherently interpretive processes in which a reader engages in an ever-expanding and deepening understanding of a relevant body of literature. Adopting a comprehensive literature review approach that addresses well-known issues resulting from applying structured literature review approaches (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002 ), we strive toward the dual purpose of hermeneutic analysis – i.e., to synthesize and critically assess the body of knowledge (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ). We would like to emphasize that the hermeneutic approach to literature reviews is not in opposition to structured approaches. Rather, it addresses the weaknesses of structured approaches (i.e., that they view engagement with the literature as a routine task rather than as a process of intellectual development) and complements them with the hermeneutic perspective to create a holistic approach for conducting literature reviews.

Theoretical underpinning and research method

A methodological means for engaging in reciprocal interpretation of a whole and its constituent elements is the hermeneutic cycle (Bleicher, 2017 ), which consists of a mutually intertwined search and acquisition circle (Circle 1 in Fig.  1 ) and the wider analysis and interpretation circle (Circle 2 in Fig.  1 ) (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ). Figure  1 depicts the steps associated with the hermeneutic literature review. The search and acquisition circle is shown on the left of the figure, while the analysis and interpretation circle containing steps of meta and content analysis is depicted on the right. The two circles should be understood as an iterative procedure, the nature of which will be explained in the following. 

Hermeneutic procedure applied to the literature review

Circle 1: Search and acquisition

The hermeneutic literature review starts with the search and acquisition circle, which is aimed at finding, acquiring, and sorting relevant publications. In line with holistic thinking, we began with the identification of a rather small set of highly relevant literature (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ) and went on to identify further literature on the basis of progressively emerging keywords. This step is central to the hermeneutic approach and addresses a criticism on structured literature reviews, namely that they downplay the importance of reading and dialogical interaction between the literature and the reader in the literature search process, reducing it to a formalistic search, stifling academic curiosity, and threatening quality and critique in scholarship and research (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ; MacLure, 2005 ). Thus, while the search process remains formalized, as in pure structured approaches, the hermeneutic approach allows us to acquire more information about the problem at hand and to identify more relevant sources of information (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ).

Given our initial research question and the scope of the review, we began by searching for papers in the Association for Information System’s (AIS’s) eLibrary over a period of 30 years (1990 to 2019). We consider this database to be a source of the most significant publications in the field of HIS research with a focus on the IS research domain. Using the keywords ‘digital health’ and ‘digital healthcare service’, we identified an initial set of 54 papers based on the title, abstract, and keyword search. Engaging in a first round of the hermeneutic search and acquisition circle, we extended and refined these keywords by identifying emerging topics within the literature, as well as using backward and forward search (Webster & Watson, 2002 ). In particular, with each additional paper identified through backward and forward search, we compared keyword references in the papers to our list of keywords and added them if there was sufficient content delimitation. The decision to add a keyword was discussed with all authors until consensus was reached. This led us to a set of 12 keywords, including ‘electronic health’, ‘ehealth’, ‘mobile health’, ‘mhealth’, ‘health apps’, ‘tech health’, ‘healthcare services’, ‘healthcare informatics’, ‘medical informatics’, and ‘health data’.

The selection of publications being considered for our research comprised all journals belonging to the AIS eLibrary, the Senior Scholars’ Basket of Eight Journals (e.g., European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Research , and MIS Quarterly ), well-regarded journals following the analyses of Chiasson and Davidson ( 2004 ) and Chen et al. ( 2019 ) (e.g., Business & Information Systems Engineering , Communications of the ACM, and Decision Support Systems ), and the proceedings of the major AIS conferences (e.g., Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS)). An overview of the selected journals and proceedings is provided in Appendix 1 .

Using our set of keywords, we searched for each keyword individually in the AIS eLibrary and the databases of the respective journals. Subsequently, we created a dataset and filtered out the duplicates, yielding a total number of 1,789 papers to be screened in the search and acquisition circle (Circle 1 in Fig.  1 ). Figure  2 provides an overview of this process by listing the total number of articles identified for each journal individually.

Steps of the search process to create the data set

The resulting 1,789 papers progressively passed through the intertwined hermeneutic circles. Because of the large number, we divided the papers at random into four equally sized groups and assigned them to each of the authors. Each author then screened the paper in his or her group. In the course of several rounds of discussion, decisions on the inclusion of keywords and articles in the literature review were made by all authors, based on the original recommendations of the author responsible for the respective group. To ensure rigor and transparency of the analysis and results, we kept a logbook in which all decisions of the authors and steps of the literature review were recorded (Humphrey, 2011 ).

Given the abundance of topics that were already apparent from titles and abstracts, we began to sort the publications (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ). The process of sorting proved to be challenging, as HIS research is diverse and tends to be eclectic (Agarwal et al., 2010 ). This is why researchers have developed frameworks for clustering and analysing HIS research (LeRouge et al., 2007 ). So far, however, no consent on a unified framework has emerged, and sorting is often strongly influenced by the authors’ views on HIS research (Agarwal et al., 2010 ; Fichman et al., 2011 ). For instance, Agarwal et al. ( 2010 ) predetermined health IT adoption and health IT impact as major themes associated with health ITs, acknowledging that this pre-categorization of research topics made a systematic review of the growing and increasingly complex HIS literature unfeasible. Consequently, we decided to sort the articles we had identified into groups inspired by and loosely related to the phases of design science research (DSR) (Peffers et al., 2008 ), which is an essential step in hermeneutics – i.e., defining guidelines to facilitate interpretive explication (Cole & Avison, 2007 ). DSR can be understood as a cumulative endeavour and, therefore, we understood HIS research as accumulative knowledge that can be reconstructed and consolidated using DSR phases as guidance (vom Brocke et al., 2015 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In particular, this helped us to sort the articles without prejudice to expected HIS research topics and clusters (Grondin, 2016 ).

In the past, researchers have used the DSR process in the context of literature reviews to identify advances in design science-related research outcomes (Offermann et al., 2010 ). In this paper, we use the DSR phases – in the sense of a rough guideline – as a neutral lens to classify articles according to their research outcomes. We thereby assume that HIS literature can be seen as an overall process, where research results and progress are built upon each other and can be classified into phases of problem identification and research issues , definition of research objectives and possible solution space , design and development of solutions , demonstration of research effectiveness, innovativeness and acceptance , and evaluation . These phases served as a guide to achieve an outcome-oriented, first-hand sorting of articles, while this approach also gave us the opportunity to take a bird's-eye view on HIS research. Note that we intentionally omitted the last step of DSR – i.e., communication – as we regard communication as present in all published articles. Based on our initial reading, we assigned all 1,789 papers to the phases and discussed this sorting in multiple rounds until all authors agreed on the assignments.

Simultaneously, we applied criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of articles. We included full papers published in the journals and conference proceedings belonging to our selection. We excluded articles that were abstract-only papers, research-in-progress papers, panel formats, or workshop formats, as well as papers without direct thematic reference to our research objective. Additionally, during the acquisition stage we stored selected papers in a separate database whenever they fulfilled certain quality criteria (e.g., for separate studies using the same dataset, such as a conference publication and a subsequent journal publication, we only used the articles with the most comprehensive reporting of data to avoid over-representation).

The authors read the resulting 489 papers to identify new core terms and keywords that were used in subsequent searches, which not only provided the link to the analysis and interpretation circle but also informed the literature search. For this purpose, each author read the papers and kept notes in the logbook that supported us in systematically recording the review process and allowed us to shift from concentrating on particular papers to focusing on scientific concepts (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ).

Circle 2: Analysis and interpretation

The search and acquisition circle formed part of the iterative procedure of analysis and interpretation, whereby the reading of individual papers was the key activity linking Circle 1 to the steps of Circle 2 (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ). Through orientational reading we gained a general understanding of the literature, thus laying the foundation for the subsequent steps of analysis and interpretation (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ).

Within the analysis and interpretation circle, two types of reviews were conducted for all identified and sorted articles: in a first round a meta-review, and in a second round a content analysis of the papers was performed. Meta-reviews are a useful tool for capturing and analysing massive quantities of knowledge using systematic measures and metrics. We followed Palvia et al. ( 2015 ), who proposed a structured method that is integrated into the hermeneutic approach. In particular, having identified and sorted the relevant research articles, we applied proposed review features, including methodological approach, level of observation, sample size, and research focus (Humphrey, 2011 ; Palvia et al., 2015 ) to map, classify, and analyse the publications (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014 ). In doing so, we slightly adapted the classic meta-analysis by focusing on meta-synthesis, which is similar to meta-analysis but follows an interpretive rather than a deductive approach. Whereas a classic meta-analysis tries to increase certainty in cause-and-effect conclusions, meta-synthesis seeks to understand and explain the phenomena of mainly qualitative work (Walsh & Downe, 2005 ). The results of the meta-synthesis provided the basis for our subsequent critical assessment of content. Furthermore, we created a classification matrix based on particularly salient features of the meta-review (i.e., levels of observation and research foci), which facilitated and standardized the content analysis.

Within the matrix, the levels of observation comprised infrastructure (e.g., information exchange systems, electronic health records), individuals (patients and users of digital health services), professionals (e.g., nurses and general practitioners), organizations (hospitals and other medical institutions), and an ecosystem level. The latter is defined as individuals, professionals, organizations, and other stakeholders integrated via a digital infrastructure and aiming to create a digital environment for networked services and organizations with common resources and expectations (Leon et al., 2016 ). To identify the most important concepts used by researchers, we discussed a variety of approaches to the derivation of research foci – i.e., areas containing related or similar concepts that are frequently used in research on HIS. Finally, six research focus areas emerged, covering all relevant research areas. To describe the core HIS research issues addressed by these foci, we used the following questions:

HIS strategy: What are the prerequisites for configuring, implementing, using, maintaining, and finding value in HISs?

HIS creation: How are HISs composed or developed?

HIS implementation: How are HISs implemented and integrated?

HIS use and maintenance: How can HISs be used and maintained once in place?

Consequences and value of HIS: What are the consequences and the added value of HISs?

HIS theorization: What is the intellectual contribution of HIS research?

We used the classification matrix as a tool for assigning publications and finding patterns across research articles and phases. In particular, we used open, axial, and selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990 ) to analyse the content of articles in a second round of the analysis and interpretation circle. Each author individually assigned open codes to text passages while reading the identified research articles, noting their thoughts in the shared digital logbook that was used for constant comparative analysis. Once all authors had agreed on the open codes, axial coding – which is the process of relating the categories and subcategories (including their properties) to each other (Wolfswinkel et al., 2013 ) – was conducted by each author and then discussed until consent on codes was reached. Next, we conducted selective coding and discussed the codes until theoretical saturation was achieved (Corbin & Strauss, 1990 ; Matavire & Brown, 2008 ). For the sake of consistent terminology, we borrowed terms from Chen et al. ( 2019 ), who used multimethod data analysis to investigate the intellectual structure of HIS research. In particular, they proposed 22 major research themes, which we assigned to the initial codes whenever possible. In two rounds of discussion in which we compared the assignment of codes, two additional codes emerged, which left us with a total of 24 theme labels (Appendix 2 ). By discussing the codes at all stages of coding, theoretical saturation emerged, which is the stage at which no additional data are being found or properties of selective codes can be developed (Glaser & Straus, 1968 ; Saunders et al., 2018 ). In fact, independent from each other, all authors saw similar instances occurring over and over again, resulting in the same codes, making us confident that we had reached theoretical saturation (Saunders et al., 2018 ).

Finally, we entered the codes into the classification matrix, which allowed us to identify patterns based on the meta and content analysis. This enabled us to provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of current HIS research; these are presented in the following section.

Zooming-in: key findings of the phase-based literature analysis

In the following, we ‘zoom in’ (Gaskin et al., 2014 ) by presenting key findings of the literature review for each phase, illustrated by means of the classification matrices. We assigned selective codes that emerged from the content analysis to the fields of the matrices, with the numbers in brackets indicating the frequency with which codes emerged. Note that, for the sake of clarity, we displayed only the most relevant research themes in the matrices and indicated the number of further papers using the reference ‘other themes.’ A complete list of research themes for each phase can be found in the appendix (Appendix 2 ). In the following, each table shows the classification matrix and selective codes that resulted from the meta and content analysis of papers in the respective phase. The shaded areas in the matrix show focused research themes (i.e., selective codes) and characteristics of research articles that gave way to clusters (i.e., collections of themes that appear frequently and/or characteristically for the respective focus).

Phase 1: Problem identification and research issues

Within the first phase, a large body of literature was found (218 articles). This phase encompasses articles that identify problems and novel research issues as a main outcome, with the aim of pointing out shortcomings and provoking further research. For instance, besides behavioural issues such as missing user acceptances or trust in certain HISs, the design and effectiveness of national health programs and/or HIS is a frequently mentioned topic. It should be noted, however, that literature assigned to this phase is extremely diverse in terms of research foci, levels of observation, and research themes, and hardly any gaps can be identified (Table 1 ).

HIS publications assigned to the phase of problem identification and research issues

The first cluster (1a) encompasses the research focus of HIS strategy, spanning all levels of observation and totalling 24 publications. HIS strategy appears to be of particular relevance to the levels of organization and infrastructure. Content-wise, the theme of health information interchange is of particular interest, referring, for example, to the development of a common data infrastructure (Ure et al., 2009 ), consumer-oriented health websites (Fisher et al., 2007 ), and security risks of inter-organizational data sharing (Zhang & Pang, 2019 ). HIS productivity and HIS security are the second most salient themes, focusing, for example, on measuring the effectiveness of fitness apps (Babar et al., 2018 ) and presenting challenges with regard to the interoperability of medical devices (Sametinger et al., 2015 ).

The second cluster (1b), comprising 25 publications, represents the ecosystem level and focuses mainly on national and cross-national HIS-related issues such as the relation between ICT penetration and access to ehealth technologies across the European Union (Currie & Seddon, 2014 ), as well as on the collaboration and involvement of different stakeholders (Chang et al., 2009 ; King, 2009 ). Most important here is health information interchange – e.g., the provision, sharing, and transfer of information (Bhandari & Maheshwari, 2009 ; Blinn & Kühne, 2013 ).

Cluster 1c covers the research focus of HIS use and maintenance, as well as the consequences of HIS. Whereas most papers addressing the HIS acceptance theme focus on professionals’ or patients’ acceptance of specific technological solutions, such as telemedicine (Djamsbi et al., 2009 ) or electronic health records (Gabel et al., 2019 ), papers assigned to health information interchange focus on topics related to information disclosure, such as self-tracking applications (Gimpel et al., 2013 ). Finally, the HIS outsourcing and performance theme concentrates on financial aspects in organizations, including potential for quality improvements and cost reductions (Setia et al., 2011 ; Singh et al., 2011 ).

Finally, the fourth cluster (1d) focuses on HIS theorizing with respect to the individual and infrastructure levels of observation. Although this cluster represents a range of theme labels (15), those addressing HIS acceptance, HIS patient-centred care, as well as health analytics and data mining predominate. Papers within the theme label HIS acceptance cover a wide range of topics, such as the acceptance of telehealth (Tsai et al., 2019 ) up to the usage intentions of gamified systems (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015 ). The same applies to the papers assigned to the theme labels of health analytics and data mining. Focusing on the infrastructure level of observation, the identified papers mostly review academic research on data mining in healthcare in general (Werts & Adya, 2000 ), through to the review of articles on the usage of data mining with regard to diabetes self-management (Idrissi et al., 2019 ). Papers on HIS patient-centred care mostly address the challenges and opportunities of patient-centred ehealth applications (Sherer, 2014 ).

Apart from these clusters, quite a few research articles refer to the infrastructure level of observation, addressing information sharing in general (Li et al., 2008 ), electronic medical records (George & Kohnke, 2018 ; Wessel et al., 2017 ), and security and privacy issues (Zafar & Sneha, 2012 ).

Most common in terms of research methods within this phase are case studies (57), followed by quantitative data analyses (50), theoretical discussions (29), and literature studies (14). In particular, case studies dominate when referring to the ecosystem or infrastructure level of observation, whereas quantitative analyses are conducted when individuals or professionals are at the centre of the discussion. However, and unsurprisingly given the considerable diversity of research themes within this phase, the variety of research methods is also quite large, ranging from field studies (Paul & McDaniel, 2004 ), to interviews (Knight et al., 2008 ), to multimethod research designs (Motamarri et al., 2014 ).

Phase 2: Definition of research objectives and solution space

The second phase of HIS research yielded a lower number of articles (45) compared to the phase of problem identification and research issues. The second phase comprises articles that focus on proposing possible solutions to existing problems – i.e., introducing theory-driven, conceptual designs of health ecosystems including health information interchange, as well as scenario analyses anticipating the consequences of HIS implementation on an organizational level. Based on the research foci and levels of observation, we identified three specific thematic clusters, as shown in Table 2 .

HIS publications assigned to the definition of research objectives and solution space

The first cluster (2a) comprises the ecosystem level of observation and encompasses eight publications. Besides a strong tendency toward theory-driven research, health information interchange is the most common theme. We found that the need to enable cooperation within networks and to ensure accurate data input was addressed in most of the literature. While a majority of studies focus on the application of HIS in networks within specific boundaries, such as medical emergency coordination (Sujanto et al., 2008 ) or Singapore’s crisis management in the fight against the SARS outbreak in 2003 (Devadoss & Pan, 2004 ), other studies, such as that by Aanestad et al. ( 2019 ), take an overarching perspective, addressing the need to break down silo thinking and to start working in networks. Following the question of why action research fails to persist over time, Braa et al. ( 2004 ) highlighted the role of network alignment, criticizing action research projects for failing to move beyond the prototyping phase and, therefore, failing to have any real impact.

Cluster 2b, encompassing nine publications, was derived from the observation that studies within the organizational level concentrated strongly on HIS use and maintenance and the consequences of HIS research. Herein, a vast array of topics was observed, such as the potential for cost reduction through HIS (Byrd & Byrd, 2009 ), the impact of HIS on product and process innovation in European hospitals (Arvanitis & Loukis, 2014 ), and the perceived effectiveness of security risk management in healthcare (Zafar et al., 2012 ). Moreover, we found that practice-oriented methods, such as mixed-method approaches, surveys, data analyses, and case studies, are used predominantly within this cluster. Focusing on the latter, most studies analyse particular scenarios by using a rather small sample of cases, for instance, Al-Qirim ( 2003 ) analysed factors influencing telemedicine success in psychiatry and dermatology in Norway.

The third cluster (2c) was derived from analysis of the HIS creation research focus (nine publications). Although health information interchange is the most represented in this cluster, a large number of further themes can be observed. Studies within this cluster predominantly address design aspects of system interoperability, focusing on data processing and data interchange between the actors. HISs mostly serve as a tool for the development or enhancement of decision support systems, such as for real-time diagnostics combining knowledge management with specific patient information (Mitsa et al., 2007 ) or clinical learning models incorporating decision support systems in the dosing process of initial drug selection (Akcura & Ozdemir, 2008 ).

Phase 3: Design and development

The design and development phase comprises 84 research articles concerned with the creation of novel IS artefacts (e.g., theories, models, instantiations). We thereby refer to Lee et al.’s ( 2015 ) definition of the IS artefact – i.e., the information, technology, and social artefact that forms an IS artefact by interacting. We assigned to this phase papers that are explicitly concerned with developing solutions for information exchange (e.g., design of messaging systems or knowledge systems in hospitals), technological artefacts (e.g., hardware or software used for generating electronic health records), and social artefacts that relate to social objects (e.g., design of national or international institutions and policies to control specific health settings and patient-centred solutions). Within the design and development phase, the analysis revealed two clusters (Table 3 ).

HIS publications assigned to the design and development phase

The first cluster (3a) was identified in the research focus of HIS creation (31 articles). Here, the most frequent research theme is HIS innovation followed by HIS and patient-centred care, HIS productivity, and health analytics and data mining. The focus is on specific contexts, mostly medical conditions and artefacts developed for their treatment, such as in the context of mental health/psychotherapy (Neben et al., 2016 ; Patel et al., 2018 ), diabetes (Lichtenberg et al., 2019 ), or obesity (Pletikosa et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, information infrastructures or architectures – for instance, for the process of drug prescription (Rodon & Silva, 2015 ), or for communication between healthcare providers and patients (Volland et al., 2014 ) – are represented.

The second aggregation of research articles is found in cluster 3b, focusing on theoretical aspects of HIS (32 articles). Again, these studies span all levels of observation (including infrastructure, individual, professional, organization, and ecosystem). Topics in this theme are diverse, ranging from HIS on a national level (Preko et al., 2019 ), to knowledge management in healthcare (Wu & Hu, 2012 ) to security of HIS (Kenny & Connolly, 2016 ).

Beyond both clusters, it is evident that during design and development, researchers do not deal with the consequences of HIS, nor does HIS strategy play an important role. Furthermore, only in the research focus of theorization is the ecosystem level of some relevance to other levels (e.g., the individual level). It should be noted that ecosystems are mostly referred to in terms of nations or communities, without any transnational or global perspective. Furthermore, the term ‘ecosystem’ has not been used in research, and within the other research focus areas, the ecosystem level is barely represented. Moreover, articles combining different perspectives of the single levels of observation on HIS – namely individuals (i.e., patients), professionals (i.e., medical staff), and organizations (e.g., hospitals) – are rare. During design and development, potential users are not typically integrated, whereas it is quite common to derive requirements and an application design from theory, only involving users afterwards – e.g., in the form of a field experiment (e.g., Neben et al., 2016 ).

Surprisingly, theoretical papers outweigh papers on practical project work, whereby the latter mostly focus on a description of the infrastructure or artefact (e.g., Dehling & Sunyaev, 2012 ; Theobalt et al., 2013 ; Varshney, 2004 ) or are based on (mostly single) case studies (e.g., Hafermalz & Riemer, 2016 ; Klecun et al., 2019 ; Ryan et al., 2019 ). Within the design and development phase, the generation of frameworks, research models, or taxonomies is prevalent (e.g., Preko et al., 2019 ; Tokar et al., 2015 ; Yang & Varshney, 2016 ).

Phase 4: Demonstration

This phase includes 35 articles related to presenting and elaborating on proposed solutions – e.g., how HIS can be implemented organization-wide (e.g., via integration into existing hospital-wide information systems), proposed strategies and health policies, as well as novel solutions that focus on health treatment improvements. Within the demonstration phase, we identified two clusters that emerged from the meta and content analyses (Table 4 ).

HIS publications assigned to the demonstration phase

Cluster 4a (10 articles) is characterized by articles that focus on HIS issues related to the infrastructure level, spanning the research foci of HIS strategy, creation, and deployment. Content-wise, the cluster deals mainly with technical feasibility and desirability of HISs, including topics such as the configuration of modular infrastructures that support a seamless exchange of HISs within and between hospitals (Dünnebeil et al., 2013 ). Moreover, papers in this cluster address HIS practicability by determining general criteria that are important for the design of health information systems (Maheshwari et al., 2006 ) or conduct HIS application tests by carrying out prototypical implementations of communication infrastructures. In particular, the latter are tested and proven to meet specific technical standards to guarantee the frictionless transmission of health information data (Schweiger et al., 2007 ). In contrast, Heine et al. ( 2003 ) upscaled existing HIS solutions and tested the infrastructure in large, realistic scenarios.

Conversely, cluster 4b (11 articles) is mainly concerned with HIS use and maintenance, spanning several levels of observation – i.e., infrastructure, individuals, professionals, and organizations. Interestingly, papers in this cluster aim at efficiency and added value when looking at the infrastructure and organizational levels, whereas researchers are more interested in acceptance when focusing on the individual and professional use of HISs. Overall, cluster 4b is primarily concerned with organizational performance (e.g., increases in efficiency due to better communication and seamless transfer of patient health information) as well as user acceptance of new HISs.

Although the two clusters constitute a diverse set of literature and themes, it is apparent that research taking an ecosystem perspective is very rarely represented. Across the papers, only three are concerned with issues related to the ecosystem level. In particular, Lebcir et al. ( 2008 ) applied computer simulations in a theoretical demonstration as a decision support system for policy and decision-makers in the healthcare ecosystem. Abouzahra and Tan ( 2014 ) used a mixed-methods approach to demonstrate a model that supports clinical health management. Findikoglu and Watson-Manheim ( 2016 ) addressed the consequences of the implementation of electronic health records (EHR) systems in developing countries.

Phase 5: Evaluation

The fifth phase includes 92 publications with a focus on assessing existing or newly introduced HIS artefacts – i.e., concepts, policies, applications, and programs – thereby proving their innovativeness, effectiveness, or user acceptance. As Table 5 shows, three clusters were identified.

HIS publications assigned to the evaluation phase

The main focus of publications in the evaluation phase is on the infrastructure level, where most papers are related to HIS creation and HIS use and maintenance. Therefore, together with the publications pigeonholed to HIS deployment and consequences of HIS, these articles were summarized as the first cluster (5a, comprising 53 articles). The assessment of national HIS programs, as well as mobile health solutions, are a frequent focus (10 papers). Articles on HIS use and maintenance are largely related to the professional, organizational, and ecosystem levels and were thus grouped as cluster 5b (10 articles). A third cluster (5c – 11 articles) emerged from research articles in HIS theorization. Here, papers at all levels of observation were found. Research focusing on areas such as HIS strategy and consequences of HIS are, with a few exceptions, not covered in the evaluation phase. Methods used include interviews, focus groups, and observations (e.g., Romanow et al., 2018 ). Experiments and simulation are rarely applied (e.g., Mun & Lee, 2017 ). The number of interviews shows a huge spread, starting with 12 and reaching a maximum of 150 persons interviewed.

Under the evaluation lens, the ecosystem perspective is covered by seven articles, but only three papers look at cases, while the others focus on theorization or consequences in terms of costs. Overall, popular topics in the evaluation phase include mobile health and the fields of electronic medical records (EMR) and EHR, e.g., Huerta et al. ( 2013 ); Kim and Kwon ( 2019 ). The authors cover these themes mostly from an HIS creation perspective; thus, they deal with concrete concepts, prototypes, or even implemented systems. In the evaluation phase, just nine papers deal with HIS innovation – a good example being Bullinger et al. ( 2012 ), who investigated the adoption of open health platforms. We may conclude that, in most cases, evaluation is related to more established technologies of HIS. As expected, most articles in this phase rely on practice-oriented/empirical work (as opposed to theory-driven/conceptual work). Just two papers (Ghanvatkar & Rajan, 2019 ; Lin et al., 2017 ) deal with health analytics and data mining, one of the emerging topics of HIS.

Zooming out: key findings of the literature analysis across phases

Having elaborated on the key findings within each phase of HIS research, we now ‘zoom out’ (Benbya et al., 2020 ; Gaskin et al., 2014 ) to recognize the bigger picture. Thereby, we ‘black-box’ the concrete research themes (e.g., HIS implementation, health analytics, HIS innovation) to focus on clusters across phases, highlighting the breadth that HIS research encompasses (Leroy et al., 2013 ). In particular, while we focused on analysing the main topics within the different phases of HIS research in the zoom-in section, we now abstract from those to perform a comparative analysis of emerging clusters across those phases by zooming out. We do so by comparing the different clusters, taking into account the aspects of the level of observation and the research foci, which gave us the opportunity to identify areas of strong emphasis and potential gaps.

In particular, each author first conducted this comparative analysis on their own and then discussed and identified the potential weaknesses together. This was done in two rounds of discussion. In particular, it became obvious which areas hold immense potential for further research in healthcare (especially the penetration of new, initially non-healthcare actors, such as tech companies or other providers pushing into the industry). We summarize these potentials for research by proposing four pathways that can help HIS research to broaden its focus so that we can better understand and contribute to current developments. Notably, we expect that these insights will help to assess the state-of-the-art of HIS research and its preparedness for dealing with the consequences of Covid-19 and further pandemics, as well as for coping with associated exogenous shocks.

In zooming out, we identified discrepancies between phase 1 (problem identification and research issues) and the subsequent phases. In particular, the diversity of topics was considerably lower when it came to how researchers determined strategies; created, demonstrated, used, and maintained HISs; and coped with the consequences thereof. We observed that researchers pointed to a diverse set of issues that span all levels of observation, especially in HIS theorization, focusing on topics such as trust in HIS, data analytics, and problems associated with the carrying out of national health programs. Surprisingly, although we can assume that researchers recognized the multidimensionality of issues as a motivation to conduct HIS research, they did not seem to approach HIS research issues in a comprehensive and consistent way.

To illustrate this assertion, we point to the ‘shift of clusters’ that can be observed when comparing the single phases, from problem identification to the evaluation of HIS. We note that clusters increasingly migrate ‘downwards’ (i.e., from the ecosystem level down to the infrastructure level) and become even fewer. In line with Braa et al. ( 2004 ), we suggest that extant HIS research has identified a multitude of interrelated issues but has faced problems in translating these approaches into concrete and holistic solutions. This is reflected in the lower number of, and reduced diversity in, clusters across research themes when we move through the HIS research phases. Thus, we conclude that future HIS research can be broadened by taking into account the following pathway:

HIS research is well-prepared and able to identify and theorize on systemic problems related to the healthcare industry. Nonetheless, it has the potential to address these problems more thoroughly – i.e., to find solutions that are as diverse as the problems and, thus, suitable for coping with issues in the healthcare industry characterized by the involvement of multiple actors, such as governments, healthcare providers, tech companies, and their interactions in diverse ecosystems (pathway 1).

As we have seen, HIS research has tended to focus on important but incremental improvements to existing infrastructures, particularly in the phases of demonstration and evaluation, with the aim of presenting new IS artefacts and conceptual or practical solutions. For instance, Choi and Tulu ( 2017 ) considered improvements in user interfaces to decrease the complexity of mobile health applications using incremental interface design changes and altering touch techniques. Similarly, Roehrig and Knorr ( 2000 ) designed patient-centred access controls that can be implemented in existing infrastructures to increase the privacy and security of EHRs and avoid malicious access and misuse of patient health information by third parties.

While we sincerely acknowledge these contributions and wish to emphasize the multitude of papers that are concerned with enhancements to existing infrastructures, we would like to shift the view to the major challenges in HIS research. These challenges include combating global and fast-spreading diseases (e.g., malaria, tuberculosis, Covid-19) and tracking health statuses accurately and efficiently, especially in developing countries. All of these challenges necessitate global and comprehensive solutions, spanning individuals, organizations, and nations, and have to be embedded in a global ecosystem (Winter & Butler, 2011 ). Such grand challenges are, by nature, not easy to cope with, and the intention to develop a comprehensive solution from the perspective of IS researchers seems almost misguided. However, HIS research is currently missing the opportunity to make an impact, despite the discipline’s natural intersection with essential aspects of the healthcare industry (i.e., its infrastructures, technologies, and stakeholders, and the interdependencies between these components). Thus, we assert that:

HIS research has often focused on necessary and incremental improvements to existing IS artefacts and infrastructures. We see potential in shifting this focus to developing solutions that combine existing IS artefacts to allow for exchange of information and the creation of open systems, which will enhance support for and understanding of the emergence of ecosystems (pathway 2).

By focusing on incremental improvements, HIS research has become extraordinarily successful in solving isolated issues, especially in relation to the problems of patients and health service providers (e.g., hospitals and general practitioners). However, we observed during our analysis that spillover effects were seldom investigated. When, for example, a new decision support system in a hospital was introduced, positive consequences for patients, such as more accurate diagnoses, were rarely of interest to the research. In fact, our meta-analysis revealed that the level of observation for the majority of papers matched the level of analysed effects. While it is valid to investigate productivity and efficiency gains by introducing a hospital-wide decision support system, we are convinced that spillover effects (for instance, on patients) should also be within the focus of HIS research. Therein, we suggest that HIS research has not focused primarily on patients and their well-being but on IS infrastructures and artefacts. However, patient well-being is the ultimate direct (or indirect) goal of any HIS research (by increasing the accuracy and shortening the time of diagnosis, improving treatment success rates, etc.). Thus, we propose that:

HIS research is experienced in solving isolated issues related to the daily processes of healthcare providers; however, we see much potential in considering the value that is delivered by focusing on patient-centricity (pathway 3).

Putting the patient at the centre of HIS research implies shifting the focus of researchers to the patient’s own processes. The question remains as to how HIS researchers can support patient-centricity. While this is only possible by understanding patients’ processes, we also see the need to understand the whole system – i.e., the ecosystem in which patients’ processes are embedded. The ecosystem perspective needs to consider networked services and organizations, including resources and how they interact with stakeholders of the healthcare industry (including patients). To date, we observe, across phases the ecosystem perspective has largely been neglected. To be precise, although HIS research seems to be aware of the multilevel aspects of healthcare issues in the problem identification phase, researchers appear to stop or are hindered from developing solutions that go beyond the development of prototypes (Braa et al., 2004 ). Thus, we find that:

HIS research is capable of theorizing on an ecosystem level (i.e., capturing the complexity of the socio-technical health system), but would benefit from increasing the transfer of these insights into research so as to develop holistic solutions (pathway 4).

Looking at the strengths of HIS research, the reviewed papers accentuate the unique contribution that IS researchers can make to better understand and design IS artefacts for the healthcare context. This has been achieved by analysing empirical data and exploring contextual influences through the application and elaboration of IS theories (LeRouge et al., 2007 ). At the same time, our literature review shows the incredible diversity and high level of complexity of issues related to HISs, indicating that we need solutions characterized by holism and the inclusion of multiple actors (i.e., an integrative ecosystem perspective). So far, by concentrating on incremental improvements to existing infrastructures HIS research has widely failed to reach the necessary holistic level.

We would like to emphasize that we recognize the value of all previous approaches. Yet, it is necessary to ask whether we as IS researchers are in a position to identify current developments in the healthcare industry and to anticipate the consequences triggered by pandemics or other waves of disease. We acknowledge that this will be difficult unless we take a more holistic view and try to understand connections in the health ecosystems. Regarding whether HIS research is in a position to capture and anticipate consequences of the current push of tech companies in the healthcare industry catalysed, for example, by Covid-19, we assert that this is hardly the case, even if IS research is well-placed to interpret the expected socio-technical changes and adaptations within healthcare. Given the enormous potential for disruption caused by, for instance, pandemics and its consequences, such as the intrusion of technology companies into the market, it is now time to question and redefine the role of HIS research so that it can generate decisive impacts on the developments in this industry.

Research agenda

To support HIS research for the transformation of the healthcare industry, we develop a research agenda that is informed by complexity theory. This theory implies that complex, socio-technical systems such as the healthcare industry can fluctuate between different states, ranging from homogenous forms of coevolution (i.e., a state where emergent structures and processes become similar to each other) to chaotic systems that are characterized by increasing levels of tension, which might result in extreme outcomes such as catastrophes or crises (Benbya et al., 2020 ).

While coevolution and chaos represent possible extreme states, the current situation – i.e., the penetration of tech companies into the healthcare industry – is best described by the dynamic process of emergence. Emergence is characterized by a disequilibrium, which implies unpredictability of outcomes that may lead to new structures, patterns, and properties within a system characterized by self-organization and bursts of amplification (Benbya et al., 2020 ; Kozlowski et al., 2013 ). Given the dynamics resulting from this, it seems impossible to predict the future; however, it is not impossible to prepare for it.

In particular, the current dynamics within the healthcare industry necessitate an understanding of exponential progress, not as the ability to foresee well-defined events in space and time, but as an anticipation of the consequences of emerging states and dynamic adaptive behaviours within the industry (Benbya et al., 2020 ). The following research agenda for HIS research is thus structured along three key issues: anticipating the range of actors’ behaviours, determining boundaries and fostering collaboration in the healthcare industry, and creating sustainable knowledge ecosystems.

According to these key issues, Table 6 offers guiding questions for HIS researchers. Addressing all issues will contribute to an understanding of the entire healthcare industry and the development of holistic solutions for a multitude of health issues by involving different actors (e.g., patients, hospitals, professionals, governments, NGOs). However, we propose approaching the agenda stepwise, in the order of the key issues, first looking at the range of behaviours and consequences of current developments for actors, then focusing on the blurring lines of the healthcare industry, and finally investigating the dissemination and sharing of knowledge, which we see as the ultimate means to connect actors and infrastructures to create a joint ecosystem. Table 6 thereby provides key guiding statements and exemplary research questions for future HIS research that support researchers in taking one of the aforementioned pathways. We structured guiding statements along three major areas of improvement. In addition, we offer exemplary research questions to these statements, as well as inspiring studies from other industries that have faced similar challenges and have been studied and supported by researchers.

Agenda for a comprehensive research approach for future HIS-research

Area of improvement 1: Anticipating the range of actor behaviours

As healthcare systems are becoming more open – for example, through the penetration of new market actors and the use of increasingly comprehensive and advanced health technologies – accurately determining the boundaries of an industry and its key actors is becoming more difficult. To model these systems, we must carefully model every interaction in them (Benbya et al., 2020 ), which first requires HIS researchers to identify potential actors in the ecosystem rather than predetermining assumed industry boundaries. As actors are not always evident, we follow Benbya et al. ( 2020 ) in proposing Salthe’s ( 1985 ) three-level specification, assisting researchers in identifying actors at the focal level of what is actually observed (e.g., hospitals, patients, and general practitioners) and its relations with the parts described at the lower level (e.g., administrators and legal professionals), taking into account entities or processes at a higher level in which actors at the focal level are embedded (e.g., national health system structures and supporting industries, such as the pharmaceutical or tech industries). These examples are only illustrative, and criteria for levels have to be suggested and discussed for each research endeavour.

To anticipate future developments in the healthcare industry, we also need to analyse the strategies and interests of actors for joining or staying in the healthcare industry. This is especially important because, like other complex socio-technical systems, the healthcare industry is made up of large numbers of actors that influence each other in nonlinear ways, continually adapting to internal or external tensions (Holland et al., 1996 ). If tension rises above a certain threshold, we might expect chaos or extreme outcomes. As these are not beneficial for the actors in the system, the eventual goal is to align actors’ interests and strategies across a specific range of behaviour to foster coevolution. This allows for multi-layered ecosystems that encourage joint business strategies in competitive landscapes, as well as the alignment of business processes and IT across actors (Lee et al., 2013 ).

Area of improvement 2: Determining boundaries and fostering collaboration

Actors build the cornerstones of the healthcare industry. Thus, if we want to understand and capture its blurring boundaries, there is a need to understand the complex causality of interactions among heterogeneous actors. In particular, scholars have emphasized that, in complex systems, outcomes rarely have a single cause but rather result from the interdependence of multiple conditions, implying that there exist multiple pathways from an input to an output (Benbya et al., 2020 ). To capture interaction, we follow Kozlowski et al. ( 2013 ), who envisioned a positive feedback process including bottom-up dynamic interaction among lower-level actors (upward causation), which over time manifests at higher, collective levels, while higher-level actors influence interaction at lower levels (downward causation). As these kinds of causalities shape interaction within healthcare ecosystems as well as at their boundaries, HIS researchers need to account for multi-directional causality in the form of upward, downward, and circular causality (Benbya et al., 2020 ; Kim, 1992 ).

Understanding casualties among actors in the healthcare industry is important for harnessing the advantages of the blurring of boundaries – e.g., by making use of the emergent ecosystem for launching innovation cycles (Hacklin, 2008 ). However, first, HIS researchers increasingly need to consider the ecosystem perspective by investigating interactions among actors and the role of IS infrastructures in fostering collaborative health innovations. We propose a focus on radical innovation, which is necessary to address the diversity and interdependence of issues present in the healthcare industry by putting the patient at the core of all innovation efforts. HIS researchers, however, need to break down the boundaries between different innovation phases and innovation agencies, including a higher level of unpredictability and overlap in their time horizons (Nambisan et al., 2017 ). Notably, this requires actors in the healthcare industry to discover new meaning around advanced technologies and IS infrastructures whose design needs to facilitate shared meaning among a diverse set of actors, thereby fuelling radical digital innovations (Nambisan et al., 2017 ).

Area of improvement 3: Creating sustainable knowledge ecosystems

We define knowledge dissemination and sharing as the ultimate means of connecting actors and aligning actions within common frameworks to shape an inclusive healthcare ecosystem. Paving the way for inclusive healthcare ecosystems is thus necessary to address the current shortcomings of HIS research as elaborated in the previous section.

Addressing knowledge dissemination and sharing is thereby of the utmost importance as we look at the healthcare industry in the current phase of emergence. This means that the industry might go through several transition phases in which existing actors, structures, and causal relationships dissipate and new ones emerge, resulting in a different set of causal relationships and eventually altering knowledge claims (Benbya et al., 2020 ). Creating a permeable and sustainable knowledge management system is necessary to ensure the transfer of knowledge for the best outcomes for the patient while securing the intellectual property rights and competitive advantages of diverse actors such as hospitals and other healthcare providers.

To be precise, we argue that to design sustainable knowledge management systems, HIS researchers need to implement systems with structures that create mutual benefits – i.e., encourage knowledge dissemination and sharing (e.g., open innovation) by actors in the healthcare industry. In a comprehensive and sustainable knowledge management system, however, not only corporations but also patients should be encouraged to share knowledge. Using this information, researchers and health service providers will be enabled to create optimized infrastructures, processes, and products (e.g., for predictive algorithms that improve treatment accuracy, or for assessing the likelihood of the occurrence of certain diseases and even of pandemics). At the same time, the trustworthiness of predictions and the anonymity of health information (and thus privacy) must be ensured. Bridging this duality of data sharing and knowledge dissemination, on the one hand, and protection of health information, on the other, is therefore essential for future HIS research.

This paper analyses the HIS literature within the IS research domain, prompted by the question of whether IS researchers are prepared to capture and anticipate exogenous changes and the consequences of current developments in the healthcare industry. While this review is limited to insights into the IS research domain and does not claim to offer insights into the health literature in general or related publications (e.g., governmental publications), we disclose several shortcomings and three key issues. Based on these, we provide initial guidance on how IS research can develop so that it is prepared to capture the expected large and long-lasting changes from current and possible future pandemics as well as the necessary adaptation of global healthcare industries affecting human agencies and experiences in all dimensions. Thus, while adaptations in the healthcare industry are already emerging, IS researchers have yet to develop a more comprehensive view of the healthcare industry. For this purpose, we provide a research agenda that is structured in terms of three areas of improvement: anticipating the range of actors’ behaviours, determining boundaries and fostering collaborations among actors in the healthcare industry, and creating sustainable knowledge management systems. In particular, addressing these areas will assist IS researchers in balancing the shortcomings of current HIS research with the unique contribution that IS research plays in analysing, advancing, and managing the healthcare industry. We are confident that IS research is not only capable of anticipating changes and consequences but also of actively shaping the future of the healthcare industry by promoting sustainable healthcare ecosystems, cultivating structures of mutual benefit and cooperation between actors, and realigning IS research to face the imminent transformation of the healthcare industry. IS research cannot contribute directly to solving the current pandemic problems; however, it can contribute indirectly triggering timely adaptations of novel technologies in global health systems, and proposing new processes, business models, and systematic changes that will prepare health systems to cope with increasing digitalization and emerging players whose push into the market enabled by the exogenous effects triggered by the pandemic.

While we are confident that the proposed research agenda based on the analysis of HIS literature provides fruitful arrays for being prepared in anticipating the future role of IS research for the healthcare industry, our results need to be reflected in light of their shortcomings. First and foremost, we recognize that the selection of literature, which is limited to the IS research domain, excludes other contextual factors that are not primarily considered by IS researchers. Thus, we cannot assume completeness, providing instead a broad overview of current issues in HIS research. In addition, possible biases may have arisen due to the qualitative analysis approach used. By independently coding and discussing codes to the point of theoretical saturation, we are confident that we largely eliminated biases in the thematic analysis. However, data saturation could not be achieved. This means that further insights could have emerged through the addition of other database searches and journals with a broader scope. Additionally, the initial sorting of papers into single defined phases of DSR research restricted multiple assignments that could have led to different results. However, we consider sorting as a necessary step of abstraction, especially given the large number of papers analysed.

We deliberately considered IS research, for which we have developed an agenda for potential future research avenues. For each of those avenues, researchers should go deeper into the subject matter in order to examine the complexity of the paths shown and to include them in the analysis (e.g., through in-depth case studies). However, it is also clear from the issues identified that IS researchers cannot solve current challenges by working on the pathways alone. In fact, the issues identified in the research agenda are only the starting point for further research, which should address the proposed issues step by step and in cooperation with other research disciplines. The latter is likely to generate further and deeper-rooted problems, as well as, in turn, future paths for research. Nevertheless, we are confident that this paper provides an important first step in opening up HIS research to better understand current developments in the healthcare industry. Further, by following and enhancing the proposed research pathways, we believe that HIS research can contribute to and support changes already taking place in the healthcare industry.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

The original online version of this article was revised: In this article the affiliation of authors are incorrect. Given here are the correct affiliations.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s12525-021-00518-8

Contributor Information

Nadine Ostern, Email: [email protected].

Guido Perscheid, Email: [email protected].

Caroline Reelitz, Email: [email protected].

Jürgen Moormann, Email: [email protected].

• Aanestad M, Vassilakopoulou P, Ovrelid E. Collaborative Innovation in Healthcare: Boundary Resources for Peripheral Actors. International Conference on INformation Systems. 2019;1:1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abouzahra, M., & Tan, J. (2014). The multi-level impact of clinical decision support system: a framework and a call for mixed methods. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), 1–17.
• Agarwal R, Gao G, DesRoches C, Jha AK. Digital Transformation of Healthcare: Current Status and the Road Ahead. Information Systems Research. 2010;21(4):796–809. doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0327. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akcura, M. T., & Ozdemir, Z. D. (2008). Physician learning and clinical decision support systems. Americas Conference on Information Systems  (AMCIS) , 1–10.
• Akkerman SF, Bakker A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research. 2011;81(2):132–169. doi: 10.3102/0034654311404435. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Qirim, N. (2003). Championing telemedicine in New Zealand: the case of utilizing video conferencing in psychiatry and dermatology. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Arvanitis, S., & Loukis, E. (2014). An empirical investigation of the impact of ICT on innovation in European hospitals. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS),  1–13.
• Babar, Y., Chan, J., & Choi, B. (2018). "Run Forrest Run!": measuring the impact of app-enabled performance and social feedback on running performance. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2018),  160.
• Benbya, H., Nan, N., Tandriverdi, H., & Yoo, Y. (2020). Complexity and information systems research in the emerging digital world. MIS Quarterly , 44 (1), 1–17. 10.25300/MISQ/2020/13304
• Bhandari, G., & Maheshwari, B. (2009). Toward an integrated health information system for collaborative decision making and resource sharing: findings from a Canadian study.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  648.
• Bleicher J. Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as method, philosophy, and critique. 2. Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blinn N, Kühne M. Health Information on the Internet - State of the Art and Analysis. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2013;5(4):259–274. doi: 10.1007/s12599-013-0274-4. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boell S, Cecez-Kecmanovic D. A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches. Communication of the Association for Information Systems. 2014;34(12):257–286. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braa J, Monteiro E, Sahay S. Networks of action: Sustainable health information systems across developing countries. MIS Quarterly. 2004;28(3):337–362. doi: 10.2307/25148643. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullinger, A., Rass, M., & Moeslein, K. (2012). Towards open innovation in health care. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS),  1–13.
• Byrd, L., & Byrd, T. (2009). Examining the effects of healthcare technology on operational cost. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• CB Insights. (2018). How Google Plans to Use AI to Reinvent the $3 Trillion US Healthcare Industry . https://www.distilnfo.com/lifesciences/files/2018/11/CB-Insights_Google-Strategy-Healthcare.pdf
• Chang IC, Hwang HG, Hung MC, Kuo KM, Yen DC. Factors affecting cross-hospital exchange of electronic medical records. Information & Management. 2009;46(2):109–115. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.12.004. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, L., Baird, A., & Straub, D. (2019). An analysis of the evolving intellectual structure of health information systems research in the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , 20 (8), 1023–1074. 10.17705/1jais.00561
• Chiasson MW, Davidson E. Pushing the contextual envelope: Developing and diffusing IS theory for health information systems research. Information and Organization. 2004;14(3):155–188. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2004.02.001. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi, W., & Tulu, B. (2017). Effective use of user interfaces and user experience in an mHealth application. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),  3803–3812. 10.24251/HICSS.2017.460
• Cole M, Avison D. The potential of hermeneutics in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems. 2007;16(6):820–833. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000725. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cilliers P. Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2001;5(2):135–147. doi: 10.1515/9781501502590-009. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin JM, Strauss A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 1990;13(1):3–21. doi: 10.1007/BF00988593. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Currie WL, Seddon JJ. A cross-national analysis of eHealth in the European Union: Some policy and research directions. Information & Management. 2014;51(6):783–797. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.04.004. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehling, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2012). Architecture and design of a patient-friendly eHealth web application: patient information leaflets and supplementary services.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–8.
• Devadoss, P., & Pan, S. L. (2004). Leveraging eGovernment infrastructure for crisis management: lessons from managing SARS outbreak in Singapore. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Djamsbi S, Fruhling A, Loiacono E. The Influence of Affect, Attitude and Usefulness in the Acceptance of Telemedicine Systems. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application. 2009;10(1):1–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dünnebeil S, Krcmar H, Sunyaev A, Leimeister J, M. Modular Architecture of Value-Added Applications for German Healthcare Telematics. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2013;5:3–16. doi: 10.1007/s12599-012-0243-3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Enkel E, Gassmann O. Creative imitation: Exploring the case of cross-industry innovation. R&d Management. 2010;40(3):256–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00591.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fichman RG, Kohli R, Krishnan R. The Role of Information Systems in Healthcare: Current Research and Future Trends. Information Systems Research. 2011;22(3):419–428. doi: 10.2307/23015587. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Findikoglu M, Watson-Manheim MB. Linking macro-level goals to micro-level routines: EHR-enabled transformation of primary care services. Journal of Information Technology. 2016;31(4):382–400. doi: 10.1057/s41265-016-0023-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher, J., Burstein, F., Lynch, K., Lazarenko, K., & McKemmish, S. (2007). Health information websites: is the health consumer being well-served? Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Fisman, R., Branstetter, L. G., & Foley, C. F. (2004). Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm-level panel data . The World Bank, Washington, DC. 10.1596/1813-9450-3305
• Gabel, M., Foege, J. N., & Nuesch, S. (2019). The (In)Effectiveness of incentives - a field experiment on the adoption of personal electronic health records.  International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS),  1–17.
• Gantori, S., Issel, H., Donovan, P., Rose, B., Kane, L., Dennean, K., Ganter R., Sariyska, A., Wayne, G., Hyde, C., & Lee, A. (2020). Future of the Tech Economy . https://www.ubs.com/global/en/wealth-management/chief-investment-office/investment-opportunities/investing-in-the-future/2020/future-of-tech-economy.html
• Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward generalizable sociomaterial inquiry. MIS Quarterly , 38 (3), 849–872. 10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.3.10
• George, J. F., & Kohnke, E. (2018). Personal health record systems as boundary objects. Communication of the Association for Information Systems , 42 (1), 21–50. 10.17705/1CAIS.04202
• Ghanvatkar, S., & Rajan, V. (2019). Deep recurrent neural networks for mortality prediction in intensive care using clinical time series at multiple resolution.  International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS),  1–18.
• Gimpel, H., Nißen, M., & Görlitz, R. A. (2013). Quantifying the quantified self: a study on the motivation of patients to track their own health. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS),  1–17.
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL, Strutzel E. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing Research. 1968;17(4):364. doi: 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwood, F. (2020, March). Google Want Your Data in Exchange for a Coronavirus Test. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/30/google-personal-health-data-coronavirus-test-privacy-surveillance-silicon-valley/
• Grondin, J. (2016). What is the hermeneutical cycle? In N. Keane & C. Lawn (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics,  299–305. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
• Hacklin, F. (2008). Management of Convergence in Innovation: Strategies and Capabilities for Value Creation Beyond Blurring Industry Boundaries . Zurich, Switzerland: Physica.
• Hafermalz, E., & Riemer, K. (2016). Negotiating distance: "presencing work” in a case of remote telenursing. International Conference on Information Systems(ICIS), 1–13.
• Hamari J, Koivisto J. Why do people use gamification services? International Journal of Information Management. 2015;35(4):419–431. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heine, C., Herrler, R., Petsch, M., & Anhalt, C. (2003). ADAPT: Adaptive Multi-Agent Process Planning and Coordination of Clinical Trials. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1823–1834.
• Holland S, Phimphachanh C, Conn C, Segall M. Impact of economic and institutional reforms on the health sector in Laos: Implications for health system management. IDS Publications, Institute of Development Studies. 1996;28:133–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huerta TR, Thompson MA, Ford EW, Ford WF. Electronic health record implementation and hospitals' total factor productivity. Decision Support Systems. 2013;55(2):450–458. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.004. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey SE. What does great meta-analysis look like? Organizational Psychology Review. 2011;1(2):99–103. doi: 10.1177/2041386611401273. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Idrissi TE, Idri A, Bakkoury Z. Systematic map and review of predictive techniques in diabetes self-management. International Journal of Information Management. 2019;46:263–277. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.09.011. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny, C., & Connolly, R. (2016). Drivers of health information privacy concern: a comparison study.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Kernick D, Mitchell A. Working with lay people in health service research: A model of co-evolution based on complexity theory. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2009;24(1):31–40. doi: 10.3109/13561820903012073. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim SH, Kwon J. How Do EHRs and a Meaningful Use Initiative Affect Breaches of Patient Information? Information Systems Research. 2019;30(4):1107–1452. doi: 10.1287/isre.2019.0858. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, S. (1992). Downward causation in emergentism and non-reductive physicalism. In A. Beckermann, H. Flohr, & J. Kim (Eds.). Emergence or Reduction. Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism (118–138). Berlin, Germany: de Gryuter.
• King, N. (2009). An initial exploration of stakeholder benefit dependencies in ambulatory ePrescribing. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Klecun E, Zhou Y, Kankanhalli A, Wee YH, Hibberd R. The dynamics of institutional pressures and stakeholder behavior in national electronic health record implementations: A tale of two countries. Journal of Information Technology. 2019;34(4):292–332. doi: 10.1177/0268396218822478. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight, J., Patrickson, M., & Gurd, B. (2008). Towards understanding apparent South Australian GP resistance to adopting Health Informatics systems.  Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS),  492–501.
• Kozlowski SWJ, Chao GT, Grand JA, Braun MT, Kulijanin G. Advancing Multilevel Research Design: Capturing the Dynamics of Emergence. Organizational Research Methods. 2013;16(4):581–615. doi: 10.1177/1094428113493119. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landi, H. (2020, April). Alphabet’s Verily rolls out COVID screening tool for health systems . FierceHealthcare. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/tech/alphabet-s-verily-rolls-out-covid-screening-tool-for-health-systems
• Lebcir, R. M., Choudrie, J., Atum, R. A., & Corker, R. J. (2008). Examining HIV and tuberculosis using a decision support systems computer simulation model: the case of the Russian Federation. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–18.
• Lee, D., & Nilsson, P. (2020, March). Amazon auditions to be “the new Red Cross” in Covid-19 crisis . Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/220bf850-726c-11ea-ad98-044200cb277f
• Lee AS, Thomas M, Baskerville RL. Going back to basics in design science: From the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact. Information Systems Journal. 2015;25(1):5–21. doi: 10.1111/isj.12054. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee CH, Venkatraman N, Tanriverdi H, Iyer B. Complementary-based Hypercompetition in the Software Industry. Strategic Management Journal. 2013;31(13):1431–1356. doi: 10.1002/smj.895. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leon MC, Nieto-Hipolito JI, Garibaldi-Beltran J, Amaya-Parra G, Luque-Morales P, Magana-Espinoza P, Aquilar-Velazco J. Designing a model of a digital ecosystem for healthcare and wellness using the BM canvas. Journal of Medical Systems. 2016;40(6):144–154. doi: 10.1007/s10916-016-0488-3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LeRouge C, Mantzana V, Wilson EV. Healthcare information systems research, revelations and visions. European Journal of Information Systems. 2007;16(6):669–671. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000712. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leroy J, Cova B, Salle R. Zooming in VS zooming out on value co-creation: Consequences for BtoB research. Industrial Marketing Management. 2013;42(7):1102–1111. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.07.006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li L, Jeng L, Naik HA, Allen T, Frontini M. Creation of environmental health information system for public health service: A pilot study. Information Systems Frontiers. 2008;10(5):531–542. doi: 10.1007/s10796-008-9108-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichtenberg, S., Greve, M., Brendel, A. B., & Kolbe, L. M. (2019). Towards the design of a mobile application to support decentralized healthcare in developing countries – The case of diabetes care in eSwatini. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Lin, Y.-K., Chen, H., Brown, R. A., Li, S.-H., & Yang, H.-J. (2017). Healthcare predictive analytics for risk profiling in chronic care: a Bayesian multitask learning approach. MIS Quarterly , 41 (2), 473–495. 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.2.07
• MacLure M. Clarity Bordering on Stupidity: Where’s the Quality in Systematic Review? Journal of Education Policy. 2005;20(4):393–416. doi: 10.4324/9780203609156. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maheshwari, M., Hassan, T., & Chatterjee, S. (2006). A framework for designing healthy lifestyle management information system.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  2811–2817.
• Matavire, R., & Brown, I. (2008). Investigating the use of “Grounded Theory” in information systems research. Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries,  139–147. 10.1145/1456659.1456676
• Mitsa, T., Fortier, P. J., Shrestha, A., Yang, G., & Dluhy, N. M. (2007). Information systems and healthcare XXI: a dynamic, client-centric, point-of-care system for the novice nurse. Communication of the Association for Information Systems , 19 , 740–761. 10.17705/1CAIS.01936
• Motamarri, S., Akter, S., Ray, P., & Tseng, C.-L. (2014). Distinguishing “mHealth” from other healthcare services in a developing country: a study from the service quality perspective. Communication of the Association for Information Systems , 34 (1), 669–692. 10.17705/1CAIS.03434
• Mun, C., & Lee, O. (2017). Integrated supporting platform for the visually impaired: using smart devices. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS),  1–18.
• Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly , 41 (1), 223–238. 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03
• Neben, T., Seeger, A. M., Kramer, T., Knigge, S., White, A. J., & Alpers, G. W. (2016). Make the most of waiting: theory-driven design of a pre-psychotherapy mobile health application.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Nicholls-Nixon CL, Jasinski D. The blurring of industry boundaries: An explanatory model applied to telecommunications. Industrial and Corporate Change. 1995;4(4):755–768. doi: 10.1093/icc/4.4.755. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., & Bub, U. (2010). Artifact types in information systems design science – a literature review. International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems,  77–92. 10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_6
• Palvia, P., Kakhki, M. D., Ghoshal, T., Uppala, V., & Wang, W. (2015). Methodological and topic trends in information systems research: a meta-analysis of IS journals. Communication of the Association for Information Systems , 37 (30), 630–650. 10.17705/1CAIS.03730
• Park, H. A. (2016). Are we ready for the fourth industrial revolution? Yearbook of Medical Informatics , (1), 1–3. 10.15265/IY-2016-052 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Patel, M., Shah, A., Shah, K., & Plachkinova, M. (2018). Designing a mobile app to help young adults develop and maintain mental well-being.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Paul LD, McDaniel RRJ. A Field Study of the Effect of Interpersonal Trust on Virtual Collaborative Relationship Performance. MIS Quarterly. 2004;28(2):183–227. doi: 10.2307/25148633. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S. A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2008;24(3):45–78. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pletikosa, I., Kowatsch, T., Büchter, D., Brogle, B., Dintheer, A., Wiegand, D., Durrer, D., l'Allemand-Jander, D., Schutz, Y., Maass, W. (2014). Health information system for obesity prevention and treatment of children and adolescents. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS),  1–13.
• Preko, M., Boateng, R., & Effah, J. (2019). Health informatics and brain drain mitigation in Ghana.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Rivard, P. E., Rosen, A. K., & Carroll, J. S. (2006). Enhancing patient safety through organizational learning: are patient safety indicators a step in the right direction?  Health Services Research , 41(4p2), 1633–1653. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00569.x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Rodon J, Silva L. Exploring the Formation of a Healthcare Information Infrastructure: Hierarchy or Meshwork? Journal of the Association for Information System. 2015;16(5):394–417. doi: 10.17705/1JAIS.00395. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roehrig, S., & Knorr, K. (2000). Toward a secure web based health care application. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS),  1–8. 10.4018/978-1-930708-13-6.ch007
• Romanow, D., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2018). CPOE-Enabled Coordination: appropriation for deep structure use and impacts on patient outcomes. MIS Quarterly , 42 (1), 189–212. 10.25300/MISQ/2018/13275
• Ryan, J., Doster, B., Daily, S., & Lewis, C. (2019). Seeking operational excellence via the digital transformation of perioperative scheduling. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Rycroft RW, Kash DE. Self-organizing innovation networks: Implications for globalization. Technovation. 2004;24(3):187–197. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00092-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salthe SN. Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samentinger J, Rozenblit J, Lysecky R, Ott P. Security Challenges for Medical Devices. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;58(4):74–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity. 2018;52(4):1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweiger, A., Sunyaev, A., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2007). Information systems and healthcare XX: toward seamless healthcare with software agents. Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 19 (33), 392–710. 10.17705/1CAIS.01933
• Schwetschke S, Durugbo C. How firms synergise: Understanding motives and management of co-creation for business-to-business services. International Journal of Technology Management. 2018;76(3–4):258–284. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2018.091289. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Setia, P., Setia, M., Krishnan, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). The effects of the assimilation and use of IT applications on financial performance in healthcare organizations. Journal of the Association for Information System , 12 (Special Issue), 274–298. 10.17705/1jais.0060
• Shahmoradi L, Safadari R, Jimma W. Knowledge management implementation and the tools utilized in healthcare for evidence-based decision making: A systematic review. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences. 2017;27(5):541–558. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v27i5.13. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherer, S. A. (2014). Patients are not simply health it users or consumers: the case for “e Healthicant” applications. Communications of the Association for Information systems , 34(1), 17. 10.17705/1CAIS.03417.
• Singh, R., Mathiassen, L., Stachura, M. E., & Astapova, E. V. (2011). Dynamic capabilities in home health: IT-enabled transformation of post-acute care. Journal of the Association for Information System , 12 (2), 163–188. 10.17705/1jais.00257
• Sujanto, F., F., B., Ceglowski, A., & Churilov, L. (2008). Application of domain ontology for decision support in medical emergency coordination. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Theobalt, A., Emrich, A., Werth, D., & Loos, P. (2013). A conceptual architecture for an ICT-based personal health system for cardiac rehabilitation. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Therrien M-C, Normandin J-M, Denis J-L. Bridging complexity theory and resilience to develop surge capacity in health systems. Journal of Health Organisation and Management. 2017;31(1):96–109. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-04-2016-0067. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tillett, A. (2020, April). Amazon to store data from virus tracing app. Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/amazon-to-store-data-from-virus-tracing-app-20200424-p54mwq
• Tokar, O., Batoroev, K., & Böhmann, T. (2015). A framework for analyzing patient-centered mobile applications for mental health. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–15.
• Tsai JM, Cheng MJ, Tsai HH, Hung SW, Chen YL. Acceptance and resistance of telehealth: The perspective of dual-factor concepts in technology adoption. International Journal of Information Management. 2019;49:34–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.003. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ure, J., Procter, R., Lin, Y. W., Hartswood, M., Anderson, S., Lloyd, S., Wardlaw, J., Gonzalez-Velez, H., & Ho, K. (2009). The development of data infrastructures for eHealth: a socio-technical perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , 10 (5), 415–429. 10.17705/1jais.00197
• Varshney, U. (2004). Using wireless networks for enhanced monitoring of patients.  Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10. 10.1504/IJHTM.2005.007009
• Volland, D., Korak, K., & Kowatsch, T. (2014). A health information system that extends healthcare professional-patient communication.  European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS),  1–10.
• vom Brocke J, Simons A, Reimer K, Niehaves B, Plattfaut R, Cleven A. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(1):205–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009): Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) , 1–12.
• Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review, methodological issues in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2005;50(2):204–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webster J, Watson RT. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly. 2002;26(2):13–23. doi: 10.2307/4132319. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Werts, N., & Adya, M. (2000). Data mining in healthcare: issues and a research agenda. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  98.
• Wessel L, Gersch M, Harloff E. Talking Past Each Other - A Discursive Approach to the Formation of Societal-Level Information Pathologies in the Context of the Electronic Health Card in Germany. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2017;59(1):23–40. doi: 10.1007/s12599-016-0462-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winter SJ, Butler BS. Creating bigger problems: Grand challenges as boundary objects and the legitimacy of the information systems field. Journal of Information Technology. 2011;26(2):99–108. doi: 10.1057/jit.2011.6. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems. 2013;22(1):45–55. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2011.51. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malpass, D., (2020, March). Coronavirus highlights the need to strengthen health systems. Worldbank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/coronavirus-covid19-highlights-need-strengthen-health-systems
• Wu, I.-L., & Hu, Y.-P. (2012). Examining knowledge management enabled performance for hospital professionals: a dynamic capability view and the mediating role of process capability. Journal of the Association for Information System , 13 (12), 976–999. 10.17705/1jais.00319
• Yang, A., & Varshney, U. (2016). A taxonomy for mobile health implementation and evaluation. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),  1–10.
• Zafar, H., & Sneha, S. (2012). Ubiquitous healthcare information system: toward crossing the security chasm. Communication of the Association for Information Systems , 31 (9), 193–206. 10.17705/1CAIS.03109
• Zhang, L., & Pang, M. S. (2019). Does sharing make my data more insecure? An empirical study on health information exchange and data breaches. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS),  1–14.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

• View on publisher site
• PDF (3.1 MB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Integrative literature review of evidence-based patient-centred care guidelines

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
• 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
• 3 Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
• PMID: 33314226
• DOI: 10.1111/jan.14716

Aim: To summarize what facilitates patient-centred care for adult patients in acute healthcare settings from evidence-based patient-centred care guidelines.

Design: An integrative literature review.

Data sources: The following data sources were searched between 2002-2020: Citation databases: CINAHL, Medline, Biomed Central, Academic Search Complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Google Scholar. Guideline databases: US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Websites of guideline developers: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Royal College of Nurses, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, New Zealand Guidelines Group, National Health and Medical Research Council, and Canadian Medical Association.

Review methods: Whittemore and Knafl's five-step integrative literature review: (1) identification of research problem; (2) search of the literature; (3) evaluation of data; (4) analysis of data; and (5) presentation of results.

Results: Following critical appraisal, nine guidelines were included for data extraction and synthesis. The following three groups of factors were found to facilitate patient-centred care: 1) Patient care practices: embracing values foundational to patient-centred care, optimal communication in all aspects of care, rendering basic nursing care practices, and family involvement; 2) Educational factors: staff and patient education; and 3) Organizational and policy factors: organizational and managerial support, organizational champions, healthy work environment, and organizational structures promoting interdisciplinary partnership.

Conclusion: Evidence from included guidelines can be used by nurses, with the required support and buy-in from management, to promote patient-centred care.

Impact: Patient-centred care is essential for quality care. No other literature review has been conducted in the English language to summarize evidence-based patient-centred care guidelines. Patient care practices and educational, organizational, and policy factors promote patient-centred care to improve quality of care and raise levels of awareness of patient-centred care among nursing staff and patients.

Keywords: Evidence-based; best practice guideline; literature review; nurses; patient-centred care.

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Publication types

• New Zealand
• Nursing Staff*
• Patient-Centered Care*
• Quality of Health Care