Evaluation framework for telemedicine using the logical framework approach and a fishbone diagram

Healthcare Informatics Research

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 230-238

  Chang, Hyejung ^a  

^a Kyung Hee University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Patient safety; Program evaluation; Quality of healthcare; Telemedicine

Indexed keywords

EID: 84946707721     PISSN: 20933681     EISSN: 2093369X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.230     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Schwamm LH. Telehealth: seven strategies to successfully implement disruptive technology and transform health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33(2):200-6.
2. Akalu R, Rossos PG, Chan CT. The role of law and policy in tele-monitoring. J Telemed Telecare 2006;12(7): 325-7.
3. Brooks E, Turvey C, Augusterfer EF. Provider barriers to telemental health: obstacles overcome, obstacles remaining. Telemed J E Health 2013;19(6):433-7.
4. Kim JE, Song YM, Park JH, Lee JR. Attitude of Korean primary care family physicians towards telehealth. Korean J Fam Med 2011;32(6):341-51.
5. u-Health Forum Korea. Current status of telemedicine [Internet]. Seoul, Korea: u-Health Forum Korea; 2013 [cited at 2015 Sep 7]. Available from: http://www.uhealth.or.kr/library/file_down.php?file_path=../upload/pds/&data_file=230_1387075618.pdf&file_name=(UHA).pdf.
6. Hein MA. Telemedicine: an important force in the transformation of healthcare [Internet]. Washington (DC): US Department of Commerce; 2009 [cited at 2015 Sep 7]. Available from: http://ita.doc.gov/td/health/telemedicine_2009.pdf.
7. van Dyk L. A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11(2):1279-98.
8. Field MJ; Institute of Medicine. Telemedicine: a guide to assessing telecommunications for health care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 1996.
9. Lustig TA; Institute of Medicine. The role of telehealth in an evolving health care environment: workshop summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2012.
10. Poultney N. A comprehensive evaluation framework for telehealth services [Internet]. Adelaide, South Australia: Australasian Telehealth Society; 2014 [cited at 2015 Sep 8]. Available from: http://event.icebergevents.com.au/uploads/contentFiles/files/2014-SFT/Nathan-Poultney.pdf.
11. Hebert M. Telehealth success: evaluation framework development. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001;84(Pt 2): 1145-9.
12. Wootton R, Vladzymyrskyy A, Zolfo M, Bonnardot L. Experience with low-cost telemedicine in three different settings. Recommendations based on a proposed framework for network performance evaluation. Glob Health Action 2011 Dec 6 [Epub]. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v4i0.7214.
13. Chaula JA, Yngstrom L, Kowalski S. A framework for evaluation of information systems security. Proceedings of the ISSA 2005 new knowledge today conference; 2005 Jun 29-Jul 1; Sandton, South Africa. p. 1-11.
14. Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: trends in evaluation research 1982-2002. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004;107(Pt 2):1289-94.
15. Donabedian A. The evaluation of medical care programs. Bull N Y Acad Med 1968;44(2):117-24.
16. Delone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 2003;19(4):9-30.
17. King WR, Rodriguez JI. Evaluating management information systems. MIS Q 1978;2(3):43-51.
18. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 1989;13(3):319-40.
19. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 2003;27(3):425-78.
20. Shaw NT. ‘CHEATS’: a generic information communication technology (ICT) evaluation framework. Comput Biol Med 2002;32(3):209-20.
21. Mammen A, Weeks R. Electronic Medical Record (EMR) technology acceptance by healthcare professionals in South Africa. Proceedings of 2014 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET); 2014 Jul 27-31; Kanazawa, Japan. p. 3539-48.
22. Ohinmaa A, Reponen J. A model for the assessment of telemedicine and a plan for testing of the model within five specialities. Helsinki: Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment; 1997.
23. Bashshur R, Shannon G, Krupinski E, Grigsby J. The taxonomy of telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 2011; 17(6):484-94.
24. Dattakumar A. A unified approach for the evaluation of telehealth implementations in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society; 2013.
25. Van Dyk L. The development of a telemedicine service maturity model [dissertation]. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University; 2013.
26. Nepal S, Li J, Jang-Jaccard J, Alem L. A framework for telehealth program evaluation. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20(4):393-404.
27. Bergmo TS. Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009;7:18.
28. Hersh WR, Hickam DH, Severance SM, Dana TL, Krages KP, Helfand M. Telemedicine for the medicare population: update. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2006;(131):1-41.
29. Zanni GR. Telemedicine: sorting out the benefits and obstacles. Consult Pharm 2011;26(11):810-2, 814, 821-4.
30. Goldberg LR. Assessing quality of telehealth: home heart failure care comparing patient-driven technology models. Proceedings of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 2007 Annual Conference; 2007 Sep 26-28; Bethesda, MD.
31. Grain H, Schaper LK. Health informatics: digital health service delivery: the future is now! Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2013.
32. Cruz-Cunha MM. Handbook of research on developments in e-health and telemedicine: technological and social perspectives. Hershey (PA): IGI Global; 2010.
33. Tanriverdi H, Iacono CS. Knowledge barriers to diffusion of telemedicine. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems; 1998 Aug 14-16; Helsinki, Finland. p. 39-50.
34. Whitten PS, Allen A. Analysis of telemedicine from an organizational perspective. Telemed J 1995;1(3):203-13.
35. Adler-Milstein J, Kvedar J, Bates DW. Telehealth among US hospitals: several factors, including state reimbursement and licensure policies, influence adoption. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33(2):207-15.
36. The World Bank. The LogFrame handbook: a logical framework approach to project cycle management [Internet]. Washington (DC): The World Bank; 2000 [cited at 2015 Oct 10]. Available from: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Evaluation-Reports-_Shared-With-OPEV_/00158077-EN-WBLOGICALFRAMEWORK-HANDBOOK.PDF.
37. Tague NR. The quality toolbox. 2nd ed. Milwaukee (WI): American Society for Quality; 2005. p. 247-9.