Legitimization of data quality management practices in health management information systems: A soft systems methodology perspective

Author:

Msendema Martin Bright1,Chigona Wallace2,Kumwenda Benjamin3,Kaasbøll Jens4,Kanjo Chipo5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Science and Technology Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences (MUBAS) Blantyre Malawi

2. Department of Information Systems University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa

3. Biomedical Sciences Department Kamuzu University of Health Sciences Blantyre Malawi

4. Department of Informatics University of Oslo Oslo Norway

5. Computer Science Department University of Malawi Zomba Malawi

Abstract

AbstractRecognizing the significance of data for policy change to improve population health, many developing countries and Health Partners have invested for decades in Health Management Information System (HMIS). Despite huge investments in technologies and capacity building to support the management of routine health data, there is still a problem in trying to make substantial improvements on gains made so far. A number of researchers have reported on lack of motivation, ownership, data use and work overload as some of the reasons explaining the persistent problem with routine health data quality. However not much has been reported on how legitimacy seekers and providers negotiate for the legitimacy of data quality management practices. We drew on this gap to explore how gaps are negotiated between the legitimacy seekers and the legitimacy providers when seeking legitimacy of data quality management practices in HMIS at micro level. Using institutional theory pillars: institutionalization and legitimation, we framed our qualitative study in soft systems methodology (SSM). We collected data using observations, semi‐structured interviews, and study of artifacts to answer our question based on the Malawi's District Health Information System (DHIS2) use case. Our findings revealed three factors shaping the gap negotiation: coercive approach, technical support and social relationship and moral judgment. The paper's contribution is two‐fold, (a) from a practical perspective we identify the pertinent context issues that come into play when negotiating a gap between the data cadres and the managers (from the Ministry of Health and partners) in the course of seeking legitimacy of data quality management practices; (b) theoretically we promote the application of SSM models with an institutional perspective in making sense of complex situations relating to legitimation.

Funder

Universitetet i Oslo

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Information Systems

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3