A scoping review of qualitative research in JAMIA: past contributions and opportunities for future work

Author:

Hussain Mustafa I1ORCID,Figueiredo Mayara Costa1,Tran Brian D12ORCID,Su Zhaoyuan1,Molldrem Stephen3ORCID,Eikey Elizabeth V4,Chen Yunan1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Informatics, Donald Bren School of Informatics and Computer Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA

2. Medical Scientist Training Program, School of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA

3. Department of Anthropology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA

4. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health & Design Lab, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA

Abstract

Abstract Objective Qualitative methods are particularly well-suited to studying the complexities and contingencies that emerge in the development, preparation, and implementation of technological interventions in real-world clinical practice, and much remains to be done to use these methods to their full advantage. We aimed to analyze how qualitative methods have been used in health informatics research, focusing on objectives, populations studied, data collection, analysis methods, and fields of analytical origin. Methods We conducted a scoping review of original, qualitative empirical research in JAMIA from its inception in 1994 to 2019. We queried PubMed to identify relevant articles, ultimately including and extracting data from 158 articles. Results The proportion of qualitative studies increased over time, constituting 4.2% of articles published in JAMIA overall. Studies overwhelmingly used interviews, observations, grounded theory, and thematic analysis. These articles used qualitative methods to analyze health informatics systems before, after, and separate from deployment. Providers have typically been the main focus of studies, but there has been an upward trend of articles focusing on healthcare consumers. Discussion While there has been a rich tradition of qualitative inquiry in JAMIA, its scope has been limited when compared with the range of qualitative methods used in other technology-oriented fields, such as human–computer interaction, computer-supported cooperative work, and science and technology studies. Conclusion We recommend increased public funding for and adoption of a broader variety of qualitative methods by scholars, practitioners, and policy makers and an expansion of the variety of participants studied. This should lead to systems that are more responsive to practical needs, improving usability, safety, and outcomes.

Funder

National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Informatics

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