Evaluating eHealth: How to make evaluation more methodologically robust

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2009, Pages

  Lilford, Richard James ^a   Foster, Jo ^a   Pringle, Mike ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; REVIEW; ARTICLE; EVALUATION; HUMAN; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS;

EID: 72949110957     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000186     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Catwell L, Sheikh A (2009) Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Med 6: e1000126. doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000126.
2. Medical Research Council (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. Available: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/consumption/idcplg? IdcService=GET-FILE&dID=15585&dDocName=MRC004871&allowInterrupt=1. Accessed 7 October 2009.
3. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, et al. (2006) Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 144: 742-752.
4. Kaplan B (2001) Evaluating informatics applications-some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform 64: 39-56.
5. Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, et al. (2008) An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 178-181.
6. Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, et al. (2008) An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 3. End points and measurement. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 170-177.
7. Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, et al. (2008) An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 163-169.
8. Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, et al. (2008) An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 1. Conceptualising and developing interventions. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 158-162.
9. Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D (2003) Reconciling the quantitative and qualitative traditions: the Bayesian approach. Public Money and Management 23: 203-208.
10. Brown C, Lilford R (2008) Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance patient safety. BMJ 337: a2764.
11. O'Cathain A (2009) Editorial: mixed methods research in the health sciences: a quiet revolution. J Mix Method Res 3: 3-6.
12. Scott PJ, Briggs JS (2009) A pragmatist argument for mixed methodology in medical informatics. J Mix Method Res 3: 223-241.
13. Bazeley P (2009) Editorial: integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. J Mix Method Res 3: 203-207.
14. Berner ES, Houston TK, Ray MN, Allison JJ, Heudebert GR, et al. (2006) Improving ambulatory prescribing safety with a handheld decision support system: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13: 171-179.
15. Howson C, Urback P (2006) Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian method. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co. 327 p.
16. Rothschild JM, Keohane CA, Cook EF, Orav EJ, Burdick E, et al. (2005) A controlled trial of smart infusion pumps to improve medication safety in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 33: 533-540.
17. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Cater R, Wynn A, Hammersley V, et al. (2003) The electronic patient record in primary care-regression or progression? A cross sectional study. BMJ 326: 1439-1443.
18. Keogh-Brown MR, Bachmann MO, Shepstone L, Hewitt C, Howe A, et al. (2007) Contamination in trials of educational interventions. Health Technol Assess 11: iii, ix-iii, 107.
19. NHS: Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) Research and Development Programme (2007) Building evidence for improvement: a plan for developing the NHS Service Delivery and Organisation Research and Development Programme within the national strategy for health research in England. Available: http://www.sdo.lshtm.ac.uk/5yearplan.html. Accessed 7 October 2009.
20. Lau F, Hagens S, Muttitt S (2007) A proposed benefits evaluation framework for health information systems in Canada. Healthc Q 10: 112-116, 118.
21. Cornford T, Doukidis GI, Forster D (1994) Experience with a structure, process and outcome framework for evaluating in information system. Omega-Int J Manage S 22: 491-504.
22. Brownbridge G, Lilford RJ, Tindale-Biscoe S (1988) Use of a computer to take booking histories in a hospital antenatal clinic. Acceptability to midwives and patients and effects on the midwifepatient interaction. Med Care 26: 474-487.
23. Makoul G, Curry RH, Tang PC (2001) The use of electronic medical records: communication patterns in outpatient encounters. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8: 610-615.
24. Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y (2005) The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 12: 505-516.
25. Markus M, Robey D (1988) Information technology and organisational change: causal structure in theory and research. Management Science 34:583.
26. Herzmark G, Brownbridge G, Fitter M, Evans A (1984) Consultation use of a computer by general practitioners. J R Coll Gen Pract 34: 649-654.
27. Benko LB (2003) Back to the drawing board. Mod Healthc 33: 12.
28. Lilford R, Mohammed MA, Spiegelhalter D, Thomson R (2004) Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet 363: 1147-1154.
29. Lilford RJ, Mohammed MA, Braunholtz D, Hofer TP (2003) The measurement of active errors: methodological issues. Qual Saf Health Care 12 Suppl 2: ii8-12.
30. Lilford R, Warren R, Braunholtz D (2003) Action research: a way of researching or a way of managing? J Health Serv Res Policy 8: 100-104.
31. Morrison B, Lilford RJ (2000) Organisational research methods: closing the gap. Lancet 355: 71.
32. Bate P, Robert G (2002) Studying health care "quality" qualitatively: the dilemmas and tensions between different forms of evaluation research within the U.K. National Health Service. Qual Health Res 12: 966-981.
33. The Royal Society (2006) Digital healthcare: the impact of information and communication technologies on health and healthcare. http://royalsociety. org/document.asp?tip= 1&id= 5684. Accessed 7 October 2009.
34. Talmon J, Ammenwerth E, Brender J, de Keizer N, Nykanen P, et al. (2009) STARE-HI-Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics. Int J Med Inform 78: 1-9.