电子健康项目评估为何失败？一组替代的指导原则。
Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles.
机构信息
Healthcare Innovation and Policy Unit, Centre for Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom.
出版信息
PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 2;7(11):e1000360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000360.
Abstract
Trisha Greenhalgh and Jill Russell discuss the relative merits of “scientific” and “social practice” approaches to evaluation and argue that eHealth evaluation is in need of a paradigm shift.
摘要
特丽莎·格林哈尔希和吉尔·拉塞尔讨论了“科学”和“社会实践”评估方法的相对优点，并认为需要对电子健康评估进行范式转变。
相似文献
1
Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles.电子健康项目评估为何失败？一组替代的指导原则。
PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 2;7(11):e1000360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000360.
2
Why national eHealth programs need dead philosophers: Wittgensteinian reflections on policymakers' reluctance to learn from history.为何国家电子健康计划需要死去的哲学家：维特根斯坦式反思政策制定者不愿从历史中吸取教训。
Milbank Q. 2011 Dec;89(4):533-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00642.x.
3
Health care reform in Chile.智利的医疗保健改革。
CMAJ. 2008 Dec 2;179(12):1289-92. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.071843.
4
Why "Rekindling Reform?".
Am J Public Health. 2003 Jan;93(1):15-6. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.1.15.
5
Universal health care at the local level: can reform increase access and help our emergency care system?
J Emerg Nurs. 2006 Dec;32(6):545-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2006.07.008.
6
Procedural fairness in health financing for universal health coverage: why, what and how.全民健康覆盖卫生筹资中的程序公平：为何、是什么以及如何实现。
Health Policy Plan. 2023 Nov 14;38(Supplement_1):i1-i4. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czad069.
7
Learning from Taiwan: experience with universal health insurance.向台湾学习：全民健康保险的经验
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 19;148(4):313-4. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00011.
8
Costs, Benefits, and Sacred Values - Why Health Care Reform Is So Fraught.成本、收益与神圣价值观——为何医疗改革如此艰难。
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 9;382(2):101-104. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1916615.
9
Sustainability of Korean National Health Insurance.韩国国家健康保险的可持续性。
J Korean Med Sci. 2012 May;27 Suppl(Suppl):S21-4. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2012.27.S.S21. Epub 2012 May 18.
10
On the path to Universal Health Coverage: aligning ongoing health systems reforms in India.通往全民健康覆盖之路：协调印度正在进行的卫生系统改革
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Sep;5(9). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003801.
引用本文的文献
1
How to make an app-based program work and show how it works.如何使一个基于应用程序的项目运行并展示其运行方式。
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2025 Sep 10;5(9):e0005034. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005034. eCollection 2025.
2
Evaluating for learning and sustainability (ELS) framework: a realist synthesis.学习与可持续性评估（ELS）框架：一项实在论综合分析
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 May 13;25(1):683. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12743-4.
3
4
Understanding "Alert Fatigue" in Primary Care: Qualitative Systematic Review of General Practitioners Attitudes and Experiences of Clinical Alerts, Prompts, and Reminders.理解基层医疗中的“警报疲劳”：对全科医生关于临床警报、提示和提醒的态度及经历的定性系统评价
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Feb 7;27:e62763. doi: 10.2196/62763.
5
Applying the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability Framework Across Implementation Stages to Identify Key Strategies to Facilitate Clinical Decision Support System Integration Within a Large Metropolitan Health Service: Interview and Focus Group Study.应用不采纳、放弃、扩大、传播和可持续性框架跨越实施阶段，以确定促进大型都市卫生服务机构内临床决策支持系统集成的关键策略：访谈和焦点小组研究。
JMIR Med Inform. 2024 Oct 17;12:e60402. doi: 10.2196/60402.
6
Implementation of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase (G6PD) testing for Plasmodium vivax case management, a mixed method study from Cambodia.用于间日疟原虫病例管理的葡萄糖-6-磷酸脱氢酶（G6PD）检测的实施：一项来自柬埔寨的混合方法研究
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 Jul 19;4(7):e0003476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003476. eCollection 2024.
7
What is quality in long covid care? Lessons from a national quality improvement collaborative and multi-site ethnography.长期新冠护理中的质量是什么？来自全国质量改进协作和多地点人种志研究的经验教训。
BMC Med. 2024 Apr 15;22(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03371-6.
8
Evaluating clinical decision support software (CDSS): challenges for robust evidence generation.评估临床决策支持软件（CDSS）：稳健证据生成的挑战。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024 Feb 8;40(1):e16. doi: 10.1017/S0266462324000059.
9
Overcoming the not-invented-here syndrome in healthcare: The case of German ambulatory physiotherapists' adoption of digital health innovations.克服医疗保健领域的“非我发明综合征”：以德国门诊物理治疗师采用数字健康创新为例。
PLoS One. 2023 Dec 27;18(12):e0293550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293550. eCollection 2023.
10
Technology to support aging in place: key messages for policymakers and funders.支持原地养老的技术：给政策制定者和资助者的关键信息。
Front Psychol. 2023 Nov 16;14:1287486. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1287486. eCollection 2023.
本文引用的文献
1
Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature.组织和政策领域中的知识交流过程：文献的叙述性系统评价。
Milbank Q. 2010 Dec;88(4):444-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x.
2
Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace.采用、不采用和放弃个人电子健康记录：HealthSpace 的案例研究。
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c5814. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5814.
3
4
Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study.在英格兰采用和不采用共享电子总结记录的情况：一项混合方法案例研究。
BMJ. 2010 Jun 16;340:c3111. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3111.
5
Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory.理论化医疗保健中的大型 IT 项目：强结构理论与行动者网络理论的结合。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(9):1285-94. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.034. Epub 2010 Feb 12.
6
Evaluating eHealth: how to make evaluation more methodologically robust.评估电子健康：如何使评估更具方法学稳健性。
PLoS Med. 2009 Nov;6(11):e1000186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000186. Epub 2009 Nov 24.
7
Evaluating eHealth: undertaking robust international cross-cultural eHealth research.评估电子健康：开展有力的国际跨文化电子健康研究。
PLoS Med. 2009 Sep;6(9):e1000105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000105. Epub 2009 Sep 15.
8
Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation.评估电子健康干预措施：持续进行系统评估的必要性。
PLoS Med. 2009 Aug;6(8):e1000126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126. Epub 2009 Aug 18.
Zotero 插件