The Role of Research Institutions in Health IT: Health IT Research Institutions vs. Health IT Companies

Conceição Granja
Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway

Kari Dyb
Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway

Stein Roald Bolle
Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway

Gunnar Hartvigsen
Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway / Department of Computer Science, The Artic University of Norway, Norway

Ladda ner artikel

Ingår i: SHI 2015, Proceedings from The 13th Scandinavien Conference on Health Informatics, June 15-17, 2015, Tromsø, Norway

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 115:13, s. 85-88

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2015-06-26

ISBN: 978-91-7685-985-8

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


Health information technology is often presented as a solution to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of health care providers. However, health IT is still far from meeting the stakeholders’ expectations. The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of research, in particular of research institutions, in the field of health IT. The differences in the roles of health IT research institutions and health IT companies is discussed according to a framework on the determinants of successful health IT implementations. It is argued that it is necessary to understand that health IT research institutions and health IT companies are two different players with different focus. As health IT companies have their focus on the product, the production of new knowledge should be the main focus of health IT research. In this sense, the two should not be evaluated in the same manner.


Health Information Technology; Research; Successful Implementations


[1] Ward BW and Schiller JS. Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among us adults: Estimates from the national health interview survey, 2010. Prev Chronic Dis 2013: 10: E65.

[2] Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, and Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: The challenges ahead. The Lancet 2009: 374: 1196-1208.

[3] Ågren G and Berensson K. Healthy ageing – a challenge for europe. The Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm, 2006.

[4] Goldberg HS, Morales A, Gottlieb L, Meador L, and Safran C. Reinventing patient-centered computing for the twenty-first century. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001: 84: 1455-8.

[5] Hjelm N. Benefits and drawbacks of telemedicine. Journal of telemedicine and telecare 2005: 11: 60-70.

[6] Starling J and Foley S. From pilot to permanent service: Ten years of paediatric telepsychiatry. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2006: 12: 80-82.

[7] Whitten P, Holtz B, and Nguyen L. Keys to a successful and sustainable telemedicine program. International journal of technology assessment in health care 2010: 26: 211-216.

[8] Zanaboni P and Wootton R. Adoption of telemedicine: From pilot stage to routine delivery. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2012: 12: 1.

[9] Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: Myths and challenges. International journal of medical informatics 2001: 64: 143-156.

[10] Heeks R. Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation. International journal of medical informatics 2006: 75: 125-137.

[11] May C, Mort M, Mair FS, and Finch T. Telemedicine and the future patient: Risk, governance and innovation, Economic and Social Research Council, 2005.

[12] May C and Ellis NT. When protocols fail: Technical evaluation, biomedical knowledge, and the social production of ’facts’ about a telemedicine clinic. Soc Sci Med 2001: 53: 989-1002.

13] Mort M and Smith A. Beyond information: Intimate relations in sociotechnical practice. Sociology 2009: 43: 215-231.

[14] Dünnebeil S, Sunyaev A, Blohm I, Leimeister JM, and Krcmar H. Determinants of physicians’ technology acceptance for e-health in ambulatory care. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2012: 81: 746-760.

[15] KS. Ikt i helse- og omsorg 2008-2012 - strategi- og handlingsplan [ICT in healthcare 2008-2012 - Strategy and action plan]. Oslo, 2008 (in Norwegian).

[16] Andreassen HK. What does an e-mail address add?-doing health and technology at home. Social Science & Medicine 2011: 72: 521-528.

[17] Schreurs N. Fiasko eller fremtid? [Failure or future?]. Computerworld. 2012 (in Norwegian).

[18] Wyatt JC and Sullivan F. Ehealth and the future: Promise or peril? BMJ 2005: 331: 1391-1393.

[19] Helse- og omsorgsdepartement. Samhandlingsreformen [Coordination Reform]. Det Kongelige helse- og omsorgsdepartement, 2009 (in Norwegian).

[20] Helse-Nord. (2012, 4 November 2013). Dette er de nye systemene [These are the new systems]. Available: http://www.helse-nord.no/helse-nord-nytt/dette-er-de-nye-systemene-article90645-1526.html (in Norwegian).

[21] Agarwal R, Gao G, DesRoches C, and Jha AK. Research commentary-the digital transformation of healthcare: Current status and the road ahead. Information Systems Research 2010: 21: 796-809.

[22] Broens TH, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, Hermens HJ, van Halteren AT, and Nieuwenhuis LJ. Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: A literature study. Journal of telemedicine and telecare 2007: 13: 303-309.

[23] Dyb K, Granja C, Bolle SR, and Hartvigsen G. On the need for interdisciplinary teams in health it design. In: Seventh International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine. Lisbon, Portugal, 2015, pp. 130-132.

[24] Waring JJ and Bishop S. Lean healthcare: Rhetoric, ritual and resistance. Social science & medicine 2010: 71: 1332-1340.

[25] Zanaboni P, Knarvik U, and Wootton R. Adoption of routine telemedicine in norway: The current picture. Global Health Action 2014: 7. doi: 10.3402/gha.v7.22801.

Citeringar i Crossref