Design and evaluation in ehealth: Challenges and implications for an interdisciplinary field

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2007, Pages

  Pagliari, Claudia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Interdisciplinarity; Medical informatics; Software development

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; ONLINE SYSTEM; REVIEW; COOPERATION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; RESEARCH; THEORETICAL MODEL;

COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RESEARCH; SOFTWARE;

EID: 34250192590     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9.2.e15     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Pagliari C, Sloan D, Gregor P, Sullivan F, Detmer D, Kahan JP, et al. What is eHealth (4): a scoping exercise to map the field. J Med Internet Res 2005;7(1):e9
2. McConnell H. International efforts in implementing national health information infrastructure and electronic health records. World Hosp Health Serv 2004;40(1):33-37, 39-40, 50-2.
3. Department of Health. Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS. National Strategic Programme. London, UK: Department of Health; 2002. URL: http://www.medgraphics.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/NHS_0007.PDF [accessed 2007 May 11]
4. Weingart P. Interdisciplinarity: the paradoxical discourse. In: Weingart P, Stehr N, editors. Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 2000:25-42.
5. Corn M, Rudzinski KA, Cahn MA. Bridging the gap in medical informatics and health services research: workshop results and next steps. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002 Mar;9(2):140-143
6. HIS-EVAL Workshop Participants, Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykänen P, Prokosch H, Rigby M, Talmon J. Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems. Reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int J Med Inform 2004 Jun 30;73(6):479-491.
7. Gagnon M, Scott RE. Striving for evidence in e-health evaluation: lessons from health technology assessment. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11(Suppl 2):S34-S36.
8. Henderson J, Noell J, Reeves T, Robinson T, Strecher V. Developers and evaluation of interactive health communication applications. The Science Panel on Interactive Communications and Health. Am J Prev Med 1999 Jan;16(1):30-34.
9. Shortliffe EH, Garber AM. Training synergies between medical informatics and health services research: successes and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002 Mar;9(2):133-139
10. Mandl KD, Lee TH. Integrating medical informatics and health services research: the need for dual training at the clinical health systems and policy levels. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002 Mar;9(2):127-132
11. Grigsby J, Brega AG, Devore PA. The evaluation of telemedicine and health services research. Telemed J E Health 2005 Jun;11(3):317-328.
12. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications-some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform 2001 Nov;64(1):39-56.
13. Kaplan B, Brennan PF, Dowling AF, Friedman CP, Peel V. Toward an informatics research agenda: key people and organizational issues. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8(3):235-241
14. Karsh B. Beyond usability: designing effective technology implementation systems to promote patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 2004 Oct;13(5):388-394
15. Southon G, Sauer C, Dampney K. Lessons from a failed information systems initiative: issues for complex organisations. Int J Med Inform 1999 Jul;55(1):33-46.
16. Stumpf SH, Zalunardo RR, Chen RJ. Barriers to telemedicine implementation. Usually it's not technology issues that undermine a project-it's everything else. Healthc Inform 2002 Apr;19(4):45-48.
17. Lorenzi NM. Beyond the gadgets. BMJ 2004 May 15;328(7449):1146-1147
18. Ammenwerth E, Shaw NT. Bad health informatics can kill-is evaluation the answer? Methods Inf Med 2005;44(1):1-3.
19. Dumay ACM, Freriks G. Quality management issues for medical ICT. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004;103:93-100.
20. Johnston D, Pan E, Middleton B. The demonstrated value of healthcare IT: decision makers need hard evidence on all potential benefits. Healthc Inform 2003:93-96.
21. Pagliari C, Gregor P, Sullivan F, Sloan D, McGillivray S, Ricketts I, et al. Literature review and conceptual map of the area of e-health. Presentation at: Fourth National SDO Conference; April 27, London, UK. 2005. URL: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/hsru/sdo/files/adhoc/conference-2005-pagliari.pdf [accessed 2007 May 11]
22. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006 May 16;144(10):742-752
23. Fitzgerald B. An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Information & Management 1998;34:317-328
24. Khoo B. A Survey of Major Software Design Methodologies. Khoo Homepage. URL: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~khoo/survey2.html [accessed 2007 May 11]
25. Royce WW. Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. Proceedings of IEEE WESCON. 1970 Aug. p. 1-9. URL: http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/ cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdf [accessed 2007 May 14]
26. Boehm BW. A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer. 1988. p. 61-72. URL: http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/ajila/4106- 5006/Spiral%20Model%20Boehm.pdf [accessed 2007 May 14]
27. Hartson HR, Hix D. Toward empirically derived methodologies and tools for human-computer interface development. Int J Man Mach Stud 1989;31(4):477-494.
28. Laplante PA, Neill CJ. ACM. 2004 Feb. (10) URL: http://www.acmqueue.com/ modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=110 [accessed 2007 May 14]
29. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 13407:1999 (2004 version). Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. ISO. URL: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER= 21197 [accessed 2007 May 14]
30. Thursky KA, Mahemoff M. User-centered design techniques for a computerised antibiotic decision support system in an intensive care unit. Int J Med Inform 2006 Sep 1.
31. Waller A, Franklin V, Pagliari C, Greene S. Participatory design of a text message scheduling system to support young people with diabetes. Health Informatics J 2006 Dec;12(4):304-318.
32. Bowman M, Lopez A, Donlon K, Tecuci G. Teaching Intelligent Agents: Software Design Methodology. Crosstalk: J Defense Software Engineering. 2001 Jun. (6) p. 10-14. URL: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crossTalk/2001/06/bowman. html [accessed 2007 May 14]
33. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-696
34. Zuber-Skerrit O. Models for action research. In: Pinchen S, Passfield R, editors. Moving On: Creative Applications of Action Learning and Action Research. Queensland, Australia: Action Research, Action Learning and Process Management; 1995:3-29.
35. Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000. 36. How to Improve. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. URL: http://www.ihi.org/IHI/ Topics/Improvement/ImprovementMethods/HowToImprove/ [accessed 2007 May 14]
36. Lewis W. Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement. 2nd edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2000.
37. Kushniruk AW, Patel VL, Cimino JJ. Usability testing in medical informatics: cognitive approaches to evaluation of information systems and user interfaces. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1997:218-222.
38. Jaspers MWM, Steen T. Cognitive engineering in interface design. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002;90:123-127.
39. Jaspers MWM, Steen T, Van Den Bos C, Geenen M. The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. Int J Med Inform 2004 Nov;73(11-12):781-795.
40. Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Evaluation methods in biomedical informatics (Health informatics). New York: Springer-Verlag; 2006.
41. Coiera E, Westbrook J, Wyatt J. The safety and quality of decision support systems. Methods Inf Med 2006;45 Suppl 1(suppl 1):20-25.
42. Department of Trade and Industry. Competing in the Global Economy: The Innovation Challenge. Innovation Report. UK Department of Trade and Industry. London, UK: HMSO; 2003. URL: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file12093.pdf [accessed 2007 May 14]
43. Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ, Macintosh C, Sharp DJ. Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2000 Mar 11;320(7236):686-690
44. Machan C, Ammenweth E, Bodner T. Publication bias in medical informatics evaluation literature: recognizing the problem, its impact and the causes. Conference paper 51. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie; September 14, 2006. 2006. URL: http://www.gmds2006.de/Abstracts/129.pdf [accessed 2007 May 14]
45. Heathfield H, Pitty D, Hanka R. Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. BMJ 1998 Jun 27;316(7149):1959-1961
46. Gustafson DH, Wyatt JC. Evaluation of ehealth systems and services. BMJ 2004 May 15;328(7449):1150
47. Ammenwerth E, De Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care trends in evaluation research 1982-2002. Methods Inf Med 2005;44(1):44-56.
48. Ewusi-Mensah K. Software Development Failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003.
49. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287(20):2691-2700
50. Anderson GF, Frogner BK, Johns RA, Reinhardt UE. Health care spending and use of information technology in OECD countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006 May;25(3):819-831.
51. Clegg M. Commissioning evaluation: is there an enlightened approach? Proceedings of the UK Evaluation Society Conference; December. 2002. URL: http://www.evaluation.org.uk/conference/Conf%20presentations%202002/Clegg.pdf [accessed 2007 May 14]
52. Pagliari C. Implementing the National Programme for IT: what can we learn from the Scottish experience? Inform Prim Care 2005;13(2):105-111.
53. DG Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission. Supporting the Monitoring and Evaluation of Innovation Programmes. A Study for DG Enterprise and Industry. Final Report. Brussels-Luxembourg: DG Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission; 2006. URL: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/innovation- policy/ studies/smeip_finalreport_master2.pdf [accessed 2007 May 14]