Quasi-experimental study evaluates a new health information system adoption in Ghanaian district hospitals, indicating significant improvement.
The adoption of new health information systems by district hospitals in low-resource settings is critical for improving service delivery, yet robust methods for evaluating the causal impact of such interventions are often lacking. This study aimed to develop and apply a rigorous difference-in-differences (DiD) econometric framework to quantify the adoption rate of a new electronic health records system introduced in a sample of district hospitals. We conducted a quasi-experimental intervention study, collecting longitudinal administrative data from 42 district hospitals. The core statistical model is a two-way fixed effects DiD specification: Yᵢₜ = α + β (Treatᵢ × Postₜ) + γᵢ + δₜ + εᵢₜ, where Yᵢₜ is the adoption outcome. Inference is based on cluster-robust standard errors at the hospital level. The analysis indicates a statistically significant positive treatment effect. Hospitals receiving the intervention demonstrated a 24-percentage-point increase in system adoption metrics compared to control facilities (95% CI: 18 to 30). The methodological application confirms the DiD model as a valid and powerful tool for evaluating health technology adoption in real-world, non-randomised implementation contexts. Health policymakers should integrate quasi-experimental designs like DiD into routine monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Future system rollouts should be structured to facilitate such comparative analysis. difference-in-differences, health information systems, implementation science, quasi-experiment, health systems research, Ghana This paper provides a novel, replicable methodological blueprint for isolating the causal effect of health system interventions in settings where randomised controlled trials are not feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osei-Agyemang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: