Page - xi - in Applied Interdisciplinary Theory in Health Informatics - Knowledge Base for Practitioners

There is inevitably some debate about which theory belongs to which domain of knowledge, but we have ended up with sections that address only two of the three foun- dational domains in the AMIA model. The omission of theories from health sciences is not by design, as we discuss further in the final chapter. Section 1 deals with theories from information science and technology, such as general system theory, technology adoption models and Shannon’s information theory. Section 2 addresses theories from the social and psychological sciences such as distributed cognition, resilience theory and normalisation process theory. In Section 3, we offer two kinds of synthesis. Firstly, we consider the ambitious framework described by Greenhalgh and Abimbola that aims to integrate several theoretical approaches to the adoption and sustainability of health in- formatics interventions. Secondly, as editors we offer our own overview of theory within the overall health informatics body of knowledge and propose a research agenda. In this chapter we highlight where further work is necessary to develop theory-based ap- proaches and mature the health informatics discipline. 6. Suggested Use in Teaching We suggest that the specified learning objectives in each chapter might be used to con- struct a teaching plan for a given lecture or seminar. Students could be assigned, individ- ually or in small groups, to produce reflective reports based upon directed reading of one or more of the chapter references. The questions for reflection at the end of the chapter might be featured in coursework or in interactive seminars. Students could be asked to find additional illustrations of the theory’s usage in health informatics, contrasting ex- amples in other fields, or how alternative theories were applied in analogous scenarios. We encourage reflection on how the use (or non-use) of theory can explain relative suc- cess or failure in health informatics and on the maturity of theory in the field. Doctoral students may like to study the gaps or weaknesses in theory: where can new contributions be made? Acknowledgements The editors gratefully acknowledge all our colleagues who gave formative advice in the planning of this book and, of course, all our chapter authors and peer reviewers. References [1] K. Lewin, Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers, Harper, New York, NY, 1951. [2] M. Rigby, E. Ammenwerth, M.-C. Beuscart-Zephir, J. Brender, H. Hyppönen, S. Melia, P. Nykänen, J. Talmon, and N. de Keizer, Evidence Based Health Informatics: 10 Years of Efforts to Promote the Principle, Yearb Med Inform 34 (2013), 46. [3] P.J. Scott, A. Georgiou, H. Hypponen, C.K. Craven, M. Rigby, and J. Brender McNair, Theoretical Foundations for Evidence-Based Health Informatics: Why? How?, Stud Health Technol Inform 228 (2016), 614–618. [4] E. Ammenwerth and M. Rigby, eds., Evidence-based Health Informatics: Promoting safety and efficiency through scientific methods and ethical policy, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2016. [5] T. Greenhalgh, H.W. Potts, G. Wong, P. Bark, and D. Swinglehurst, Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method, Milbank Q 87 (2009), 729–788. xi