Hebert M
Health Telematics Unit, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 2):1145-9.
Implementing telehealth applications represents a substantial investment of resources, which is one reason why success is of great interest. Many research and evaluation studies have investigated measures of successful telehealth systems. However, the term "telehealth" represents a wide range of variables including clinical application, characteristics of the information being transmitted, temporal relationships of data transfer and the organizational context. These sources of variability pose many challenges for evaluation as well as for building a cumulative history of research. A conceptual framework is required that assists in categorizing results and drawing conclusions based on an accumulation of findings. One measure of "success" in health care is quality patient care and this reflects a primary reason for ICT investments. For this reason, Donabedian's work in evaluating quality provides the basis for the proposed framework. DeLone and McLean's definitions of IS success assist in conceptualizing Donabedian's structure-outcome-process variables in a telehealth context. Multiple evaluation approaches have been used to address different types of questions. Prior to the technologies being introduced to clinical care, there are usually many studies to demonstrate their effectiveness. Health Technology Assessment examines a broader context than the technology alone, including costs and comparing alternatives that would exist in the absence of telehealth. It considers performance measures; outcomes; summary measures, operational considerations, and other issues. Program Evaluation examines use of the technology to provide a service or deliver a program. Evaluation questions often address whether the program goals have been met and if it is operating as expected. Perhaps of greater concern than the evaluation approach taken is generalizability of findings. Recent studies have given inadequate attention to defining what is done (i.e. comparison of telehealth to most appropriate alternative), identifying the beneficiaries of telehealth (i.e. ensuring randomly selected participants take part) and what is measured (i.e. including benefits, drawbacks and side effects of telehealth). Evaluation efforts and frameworks have identified "success" factors such as technical acceptability of the system, cost/benefit/effectiveness, organizational support, satisfaction, recruitment and retention, client outcomes such as quality of life, acceptance by consumers and providers. Less is known about the relationship among these variables and whether the findings around one variable are generalizable to other settings or applications. For example, organizational support may be essential for successful provider-patient interactions via videoconference, which result in higher quality of life. A conceptual framework would assist in accumulating this type of evidence and supporting more advanced research efforts.
实施远程医疗应用需要大量资源投入,这也是人们对其成功极为关注的原因之一。许多研究和评估研究都调查了成功的远程医疗系统的衡量标准。然而,“远程医疗”一词涵盖了广泛的变量,包括临床应用、所传输信息的特征、数据传输的时间关系以及组织背景。这些变异性来源给评估以及建立累积的研究历史带来了诸多挑战。需要一个概念框架来帮助对结果进行分类,并基于研究结果的积累得出结论。医疗保健领域“成功”的一个衡量标准是高质量的患者护理,这反映了信息通信技术投资的一个主要原因。因此,唐纳贝迪安在评估质量方面的工作为所提出的框架提供了基础。德洛内和麦克莱恩对信息系统成功的定义有助于在远程医疗背景下将唐纳贝迪安的结构 - 结果 - 过程变量概念化。多种评估方法已被用于解决不同类型的问题。在将这些技术引入临床护理之前,通常有许多研究来证明其有效性。卫生技术评估考察的背景比技术本身更广泛,包括成本以及比较在没有远程医疗的情况下可能存在的替代方案。它考虑性能指标、结果、汇总指标、操作考量以及其他问题。项目评估考察技术用于提供服务或实施项目的情况。评估问题通常涉及项目目标是否实现以及其运作是否符合预期。或许比所采用的评估方法更令人担忧的是研究结果的可推广性。近期研究对定义所做之事(即远程医疗与最合适替代方案的比较)、确定远程医疗的受益者(即确保随机选择参与者参与)以及所测量的内容(即包括远程医疗的益处、缺点和副作用)关注不足。评估工作和框架已经确定了“成功”因素,如系统的技术可接受性、成本/效益/有效性、组织支持、满意度、招募和留存率、患者结果如生活质量、消费者和提供者的接受度。对于这些变量之间的关系以及围绕一个变量的研究结果是否可推广到其他环境或应用,人们了解得较少。例如,组织支持对于通过视频会议实现成功的医患互动可能至关重要,而这种互动会带来更高的生活质量。一个概念框架将有助于积累这类证据,并支持更深入的研究工作。