Lest formalisms impede insight and success: Evaluation in health informatics - A case study

Methods of Information in Medicine

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 67-72

  Moehr, Jochen R ^a   Anglin, C ^b   Schoafsma, J ^a   Pantazi, S ^a   Grimm, N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b STN CSC ^*

Author keywords

Canada; Evaluation studies; Medical informatics; Telemedicine

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EVALUATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTROSPECTION; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TELEHEALTH; ARTICLE; CANADA; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; TELEMEDICINE;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; EVALUATION STUDIES; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 33645740141     PISSN: 00261270     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634039     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Friedman C, Wyatt J. Evaluation methods in medical informatics. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1997.
2. Anderson J, Aydin C, Jay S. Evaluating Health Care Information Systems. Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
3. Kaplan B. Addressing organizational issues into the evaluation of medical systems. JAMIA 1997; 4 (2): 94-101.
4. Kushniruk A, et al. Cognitive evaluation of the user interface and vocabulary of an outpatient information system. In: AMIA Fall Symposium. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus Inc; 1996.
5. Stoop A, Berg M. Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in patient care information system evaluation: guidance for the organizational decision maker. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (4): 458-62.
6. Jergensen T. Measuring Effects, in Assessment and Evaluation of Information Technologies in Medicine. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1995.
7. Grant A, Plante I, Leblanc F. The TEAM methodology for the Evaluation of Information Systems in Biomedicine. Comp Biol Med 2002. 32: 195-207.
8. Shaw NT. 'CHEATS': a Generic Information Communication Technology (ICT) Evaluation Framework. Comp Biol Med 2002; 32: 209-20.
9. Ammenwerth E, et al. Vision and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems. Reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int J Med Inf 2004; 73: 479-91.
10. Kaplan B. Evaluating Informatics Applications - some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and a call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inf 2001; 64: 39-56.
11. Kushniruk AW. Evaluation in the Design of Health Information Systems: Application of Approaches Resulting from Usability Engineering. Comp Biol Med 2002; 32: 141-50.
12. Moehr J. Evaluation: Salvation or Nemesis of Medical Informatics? Comp Biol Med 2002; 32 (3): 113-25.
13. Stead W, et al. Designing Medical Informatics Research and Library-Resource Projects to Increase What is Learned. JAMIA 1994; 1: 28-33.
14. Moehr JR. Final Evaluation Report. BC Telehealth Program. 2003, University of Victoria: Victoria, p. 306. http://hinf.uvic.ca/archives/t_health. pdf
15. Institute of Medicine, Committee on evaluating clinical applications of telemedicine. In: Field MJ, editor. Telemedicine: a guide to assessing telecommunications in health. Washington: National Academy Press: Washington, DC; 1996.
16. (NIFTE), N.I.f.T., National Initiative for Telehealth Framework of Guidelines. 2003, NIFTE: Ottawa.
17. Reichertz P, et al. Evaluation of a Field Test of Computers for the Doctor's Office. Methods Inf Med 1979; 18: 61-70.
18. Reichertz PL, et al. Praxiscomputer im Routine-test. Begleituntersuchung eines Feldversuchs, ed. Z.f.d.K.V.i.d.B. Deutschland. Köln-Lövenich: Deutscher Ärzteverlag; 1980.
19. Reichertz PL, et al. Evaluation of a field test of computers for the doctor's office. In: Yearbook of Medical Informatics '99, Van Bemmel J, McCray AT, editors. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 1999. pp 247-56.
20. Moehr J. Commentary on Reichertz PL, et al. Evaluation of a Field Test of Computers for the Doctor's Office. In: van Bemmel J, McCray A, editors. Yearbook of Medical Informatics '99. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 1999. pp 247-56.
21. Moehr JR. Simulating the Effect of Computer Application on Office Practice. In: Third Int Con ference on Systems Science in Health Care. Springer; 1984.
22. Holbrook A, Keshavje K, Troyan S. Does Electronic Monitoring and Advice Improve Diabetes Care? The Compete II Randomized Trial. In: e-health 2004. 2004, Canadian Institute for Health Information; COACH, Canada's Health Informatics Association: Victoria, B.C., Canada. http://www.e-healthconference.com/ downloads/5-10_keshavjee.pdf