Stoop A P, Berg M
Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Methods Inf Med. 2003;42(4):458-62.
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we describe two important dimensions of patient care information systems (PCIS) evaluation: the domain of evaluation and the different phases of the PCIS implementation. Second, we claim that, though Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often still seen as the standard approach, this type of design hardly generates relevant information for the organizational decision maker.
Interpretive study of evaluation literature.
The field of evaluation is scattered and the types of questions that can be asked and methods that can be used seem infinite and badly demarcated. Different stakeholders, moreover, often have different priorities in evaluating ICT. The most important reason for the lack of relevance of RCTs is that they are ill suited for investigating why and how a PCIS is being used, or not, and what the (often unplanned) effects and consequences are. Subsequently, our aim is to contribute to the discussion about the viability of qualitative versus quantitative methods in PCIS evaluation, by arguing for a specific integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The joint utilization of these methods, we claim, yields the richest results.
本文有两个目的。其一，我们描述患者护理信息系统（PCIS）评估的两个重要维度：评估领域和PCIS实施的不同阶段。其二，我们认为，尽管随机对照试验（RCT）通常仍被视为标准方法，但这种设计几乎无法为组织决策者提供相关信息。
对评估文献进行解释性研究。
评估领域分散，可提出的问题类型和可使用的方法似乎无穷无尽且界限不清。此外，不同的利益相关者在评估信息通信技术时往往有不同的优先事项。随机对照试验缺乏相关性的最重要原因是，它们不适用于调查PCIS被使用或未被使用的原因和方式，以及（通常是意外的）影响和后果是什么。随后，我们的目的是通过主张定量和定性研究方法的特定整合，为关于PCIS评估中定性与定量方法可行性的讨论做出贡献。我们认为，联合使用这些方法能产生最丰富的结果。
