Guideline for good evaluation practice in health informatics (GEP-HI)
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Commission of the European Communities, COM 356: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: e-Health—making health care better for European citizens: An action plan for a European e-Health Area (COM (2004) 356, Brussels, 2004.
European Commission, 2006
United States Congress, 2009
Sittig, 2010, Safe electronic health record use requires a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework, JAMA, 303, 450, 10.1001/jama.2010.61
Ammenwerth, 2005, Bad health informatics can kill—is evaluation the answer. Editorial, Methods Inf. Med., 44, 1, 10.1055/s-0038-1633915
Veterans given wrong drug doses due to glitch, Health care at msnbc.com, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28655104 (accessed 16.11.10).
Han, 2005, Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system, Pediatrics, 116, 1506, 10.1542/peds.2005-1287
Ekeland, 2010, Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews, Int. J. Med. Inform., 79, 736, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006
Fontaine, 2010, Systematic review of health information exchange in primary care practices, J. Am. Board Fam. Med., 23, 655, 10.3122/jabfm.2010.05.090192
Moehr, 2002, Evaluation of health information systems: beyond efficiency and effectiveness, Comput. Biol. Med., 32, 111, 10.1016/S0010-4825(02)00008-2
Brender, 2006
Ammenwerth, 2004, 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., 73, 479, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.04.004
Oxman, 2010, A framework for mandatory impact evaluation to ensure well informed public policy decisions, Lancet, 375, 427, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61251-4
Scriven, 1991
Declaration of Innsbruck—Results from the European Science Foundation sponsored Workshop on Systematic Evaluation of Health Information Systems (HIS-EVAL), April 4–6th, 2003, http://iig.umit.at/dokumente/r16.pdf (accessed 21.7.11).
Talmon, 2009, STARE-HI—statement on reporting of evaluation studies in health informatics, Int. J. Med. Inform., 78, 1, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.09.002
Equator Network, Reporting Guidelines, http://www.equator-network.org/ (accessed 17.11.10).
Kazanjian, 2002, Beyond effectiveness: the evaluation of information systems using a comprehensive health technology assessment framework, Comput. Biol. Med., 32, 165, 10.1016/S0010-4825(02)00013-6
Rigby, 2006, Evaluation—the Cinderella science of ICT in health, 114
Talmon, 2006, Evaluation and implementation: a call for action, 11
Yusof, 2008, Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems, Int. J. Med. Inform., 77, 377, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.004
K. Kidholm, A. Bowes, S. Dyrehauge, A. Granstrøm Ekeland, S.A. Flottorp, L. Kvistgaard, et al., The MAST Manual, MAST-Model for Assessment of Telemedicine, http://www.epractice.eu/en/library/315610 (accessed 22.11.10).
Cusack, 2009
Catwell, 2009, Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation, PLoS Med., 6, e1000126, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126
Clarke, 1994, A methodology for evaluation of knowledge-based systems in medicine, Artif. Intell. Med., 6, 107, 10.1016/0933-3657(94)90040-X
Kaplan, 2001, Evaluating informatics applications—some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism, Int. J. Med. Inform., 64, 39, 10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00184-8
Shaw, 2002, CHEATS: a generic information communication technology (ICT) evaluation framework, Comput. Biol. Med., 32, 209, 10.1016/S0010-4825(02)00016-1
Westbrook, 2004, Evaluating the impact of information communication technologies on complex organizational systems: a multi-disciplinary, multi-method framework, 1323
Hyppönen, 2007, Testing a theoretical framework for interdisciplinary IS evaluation: the case of Finnish electronic prescription, Int. J. Healthc. Technol. Manag., 8, 42
Brender, 2008, Evaluation methods to monitor success and failure factors in health information system's development, 180
Yusof, 2008, An evaluation framework for health information systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit), Int. J. Med. Inform., 77, 386, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.011
Nykänen, 1999, Inventory of validation approaches in selected health telematics projects, Int. J. Med. Inform., 56, 87, 10.1016/S1386-5056(99)00047-7
Kaplan, 2004, Future directions in evaluations research: people, organisational and social issues, Methods Inf. Med., 43, 215, 10.1055/s-0038-1633862
Friedman, 2006
Brender, 2006, Factors influencing success and failure of health informatics systems—a pilot Delphi study, Methods Inf. Med., 45, 125, 10.1055/s-0038-1634049
Westbrook, 2007, Multimethod evaluation of information and communication technologies in health in the context of wicked problems and sociotechnical theory, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., 14, 746, 10.1197/jamia.M2462
Ammenwerth, 2005, An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research 1982–2002, Methods Inf. Med., 44, 44, 10.1055/s-0038-1633922
AGREE-Criteria, http://www.agreecollaboration.org/1/agreeguide (accessed 19.11.10).
Begg, 1996, Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement, JAMA, 276, 637, 10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030
Altman, 2001, The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration, Ann. Intern. Med., 134, 663, 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
Campbell, 2004, CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials, BMJ, 328, 702, 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702
Moher, 1999, Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses, Lancet, 354, 1896, 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
Bossuyt, 2003, Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative, Clin. Chem., 49, 1, 10.1373/49.1.1
von Elm, 2007, The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies, Bull. World Health Organ., 85, 867, 10.2471/BLT.07.045120
Boutron, 2008, Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of non-pharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration, Ann. Intern. Med., 148, 295, 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008
Falagas, 2007, Guidelines and consensus statements regarding the conduction and reporting of clinical research studies, Arch. Intern. Med., 167, 877, 10.1001/archinte.167.9.877
Website of the EFMI Working Group: assessment of health information systems (EMFI-WG EVAL), http://iig.umit.at/efmi/ (accessed 20.1.11).
Coolican, 1999
Schalock, 2001
Quinn Patton, 2002
Davidson, 2005
Fink, 2005
Owen, 2007
Vimarlund, 2005, Economic analyses for ICT in elderly healthcare: questions and challenges, Health Inform. J., 11, 309, 10.1177/1460458205058758
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publications, www.icmje.org/index.html (accessed 15.11.10).
IMIA Code of Ethics for health information professionals, http://www.imia-medinfo.org/new2/node/39 (accessed 21.11.10).
Abban, 2003, Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards, Softw. Qual. J., 11, 325, 10.1023/A:1025869312943
J. Nielsen, Ten usability heuristics, http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html (accessed 20.11.10).
Beuscart-Zephir, 2007, The human factors engineering approach to biomedical informatics projects: state of the art, results, benefits and challenges, 109
ANSI/AAMI HE75:2009, Human factors engineering—design of medical devices.
ANSI/AAMI/IEC 62366:2007, Medical devices—application of usability engineering to medical devices (Rep No EN62366).
2001