Telemedicine evaluation

Telemedicine and e-Health

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 296-316

  Bashshur, Rashid ^a   Shannon, Gary ^a   Sapci, Hasan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE; PUBLIC POLICY; STRATEGIC PLANNING; TRIANGULATION;

E-HEALTH; TYPOLOGY;

TELEMEDICINE;

CONFERENCE PAPER; EVALUATION AND FOLLOW UP; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TELECOMMUNICATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 23044446507     PISSN: 15305627     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.296     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. Berki, S. Telemedicine, some economic implications. In Bashshur R, Armstrong P, Youssef Z, eds. Telemedicine, Explorations in the use of telecommunications in health care. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 1975: 175-191, and reproduced courtesy of Charles C Thomas, Ltd., Springfield, Illinois.
2. Sechrest LS, West G, Phillips MA, Redners R, Yeaton WH. Some neglected problems in evaluation research: strengths and integrity of treatments. In: Sechrest L et al. Evaluation studies review annual, Vol. 4, Beverly Hills, CA, 1979.
3. Koran LM. The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgments. N Engl J Med 1975;293:695-701.
4. Bashshur RL. A proposed model for evaluating telemedicine. In: Parker L, Olgren C, eds. Teleconferencing and Interactive Media. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension Center for Interactive Programs, 1980;211-219.
5. Insititue of Medicine. Telemedicine: a guide to assessing telecommunications for health care. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 1996. (Also available online at: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309055319/ html/index.html).
6. The Lewin Group. Assessment of Approaches to Evaluating Telemedicine Final Report. Prepared for Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, 2000. (Available on-line at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/AAET/aaet.htm).
7. DeChant H, Tohme W, Mun S, et al. Health systems evaluation of telemedicine: a staged approach. Telemed J 1996;2:303-312.
8. Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. Canad Med Assn J 2001;165:765-771.
9. Health Canada. Evaluating Telehealth 'Solutions' A Review and Synthesis of the Telehealth Evaluation Literature. Office of Health and the Information Highway, 2000. (Available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/-bsi/ pubs/2000_tele/tele_e. html).
10. Hersh W, Helfand M, Wallace J, et al. Clinical outcomes resulting from telemedicine interventions: a systematic review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2001;1:5 (Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/1/ 5).
11. U.S. Congress. 2001 Report to Congress on Telemedicine: Evaluation and Research. Office for the Advancement of Telehealth Publications, 2001. (Available at http://telehealtah.hrsa.gov/pubs/report2001/ eval.htm).
12. Stead W. In: Hersh W, Patterson P, Kraemer D. Telehealth: The Need for Evaluation Redux. J Am Med Informatics Assn 2002;9:89-91.
13. Whitten P, Mair F, Haycox A, et al. Systematic review of cost effectiveness of telemedicine interventions. Br Med J 2002;324:1434-1437.
14. Mair F, Whitten P. Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Br Med J 2000;329: 1517-1520.
15. Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A. Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2002;8(Suppl. 1):S1:1-7.
16. Hilty D, Marks S, Urness D, Yellowlees P, Nesbitt T. Clinical and educational telepsychiatry applications: a review. Canad J Psychiatry 2004;49:12-23.
17. Drake DE. Evaluating telemedicine: A literature review. eHealth Int 2003.
18. Grigsby J, Kaehny M, Schlenker R, et al. Analysis of Expansion of Access to Care Through Use of Telemedicine and Mobile Health Services Report 1: Literature Review and Analytic Framework. Denver Center for Health Policy Research, 1993.
19. Krupinski E, Nypaver M, Poropatich R, et al. Clinical applications in telemedicine/telehealth. In: Bashshur R, Mandil S, Shannon G, eds. State of the Art: Telemedicine/Telehealth 2002;8:13-34.
20. Campbell D. Quasi-experimental design. In: Samuel Overman E, ed. Methodology and Epistemology for Social Sciences: Selected Papers Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988:168-190.
21. Rogers E, Shoemaker F. Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press, 1971.
22. Welch B, Hay U, Miller D, et al. The Rand Health Insurance Study: a summary critique. Med Care 1987; 25:148-156.
23. Gordis L. Randomized trials: some further issues. In: Epidemiology, 2nd ed. Saunders: Philadelphia, 2000: 110-128.
24. Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring: Volume I: The Definition of Quality and Approaches to its Assessment Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press, 1980.
25. Kane R, Warnick R, Proctor PH, Olsen DM, Gourley D. Mail-order medicine; an analysis of the Sears Roebuck Foundation's Community Medical Assistance Program. J Am Med Assn 1975;232:1023-1027.
26. Legislative History on the Passage of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, Public Law 725, 79th Congress, July 1948. (Available athttp://rmp.nlm.nih.gov/ RM/A/A/E/H?_rmaah.pdf).
27. U.S. Senate. Senate Report 104-093-Health Professions Education Consolidation and Reauthorization Act of 1995. Section II Background and Need for Legislation, 1999.
28. Fowler T. The formality of reality: Xavier Zubiri's critique of Hume's analysis of causality. Xavier Zubiri Rev 1998;1:57-66.
29. Hill BA. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc Soc Med 1965;58:295-300.
30. Rothman K. Causation and causal inference. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni J, eds. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 1996:3-11.
31. Milloy S, Gough M. The Environmental cancer epidemic that never was. Regulation: The CATO Review of Business and Government, 2004. (Available at http:// www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n2g.html).
32. Mackay W. Triangulation within and across HCI disciplines, 2004. (Available at: http://www-ihm.lri.fr/ ~mackay/pdffiles/HCI98.Commentary.pdf).
33. Mackay W, Fayard A. HCI, natural science and design: a framework for triangulation across disciplines. In: Proc Design Interact Syst DIS '97. ACM: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997.
34. Jick T. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Admin Sci Q 1979;74:602-611.
35. Mitchell E. Multiple triangulation: a methodology for nursing science. Adv Nurs Sci 1986;8:18-26.
36. Handfield R, Ragatz G, Monczka R. A triangulated approach to empirical research: the global procurement and supply chain benchmarking initiative. Decision Line 1995;26:3.
37. Donabedian A. Accessibility. In: Aspects of Medical Care in Organization Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973:419-436.
38. Guagliardo M. Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges. Intl J Health Geographics 2004;3:3. (Available at http://www.ij-health-geographics.com/content/3/1/3).
39. Gregory P, Malka E, Kostis J, et al. Impact of geographic proximity to cardiac revascularization services and service utilization. Med Care 2000;38:45-57.
40. Fortney J, Rost K, Zhang M, Warren J. The impact of geographic accessibility on the intensity and quality of depression treatment. Med Care 1999;37:884-893.
41. Shannon G, Bashshur R, Metzner C. The concept of distance as a factor in accessibility and utilization of health care. Med Care Rev 1969;26:143-161.
42. Shannon G, Bashshur R, Lovett J. Distance and the utilization of mental health services. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Health and Society 1986;64:302-330.