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

IF 1.1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Martin Bright Msendema, Wallace Chigona, Benjamin Kumwenda, Jens Kaasbøll, Chipo Kanjo
{"title":"Legitimization of data quality management practices in health management information systems: A soft systems methodology perspective","authors":"Martin Bright Msendema,&nbsp;Wallace Chigona,&nbsp;Benjamin Kumwenda,&nbsp;Jens Kaasbøll,&nbsp;Chipo Kanjo","doi":"10.1002/isd2.12289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recognizing 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":46610,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/isd2.12289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recognizing 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.

卫生管理信息系统中数据质量管理实践的合法化:软系统方法论视角
许多发展中国家和卫生合作伙伴认识到数据对于改变政策以改善人口健康的重要意义,几十年来一直投资于卫生管理信息系统(HMIS)。尽管在支持常规卫生数据管理的技术和能力建设方面进行了大量投资,但在试图对迄今取得的成果进行实质性改进方面仍然存在问题。一些研究人员报告说,缺乏动力、所有权、数据使用和工作负担过重是常规卫生数据质量长期存在问题的部分原因。然而,关于合法性寻求者和提供者如何就数据质量管理实践的合法性进行谈判的报道并不多。我们利用这一空白,探讨在微观层面上寻求 HMIS 中数据质量管理实践的合法性时,合法性寻求者与合法性提供者之间是如何协商差距的。利用制度理论的支柱:制度化和合法化,我们采用软系统方法论(SSM)进行了定性研究。我们通过观察、半结构式访谈和人工制品研究收集数据,以马拉维地区卫生信息系统(DHIS2)的使用案例为基础回答我们的问题。我们的发现揭示了影响差距谈判的三个因素:强制性方法、技术支持和社会关系以及道德判断。本文有两方面的贡献:(a) 从实践的角度来看,我们确定了数据干部与管理人员(来自卫生部和合作伙伴)在寻求数据质量管理实践合法性的过程中进行差距谈判时所涉及的相关背景问题;(b) 从理论的角度来看,我们提倡从制度的角度应用 SSM 模型来理解与合法性相关的复杂情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
51
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信