• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在跨学科和多国环境中规划整体总结性电子健康评估:案例研究和指南制定建议。

Planning a holistic summative eHealth evaluation in an interdisciplinary and multi-national setting: a case study and propositions for guideline development.

机构信息

Centre for Healthcare Improvement (CHI), Chalmers University of Technology, Vera Sandbergs allé 8, 41296, Gothenburg, Sweden.

NTNU, Sentralbygg 1, Gløshaugen, Alfred Getz vei 3, Trondheim, Norway.

出版信息

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Feb 17;21(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01399-9.

DOI:10.1186/s12911-021-01399-9
PMID:33596910
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7888081/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Summative eHealth evaluations frequently lack quality, which affects the generalizability of the evidence, and its use in practice and further research. To guarantee quality, a number of activities are recommended in the guidelines for evaluation planning. This study aimed to examine a case of an eHealth evaluation planning in a multi-national and interdisciplinary setting and to provide recommendations for eHealth evaluation planning guidelines.

METHODS

An empirical eHealth evaluation process was developed through a case study. The empirical process was compared with selected guidelines for eHealth evaluation planning using a pattern-matching technique.

RESULTS

Planning in the interdisciplinary and multi-national team demanded extensive negotiation and alignment to support the future use of the evidence created. The evaluation planning guidelines did not provide specific strategies for different set-ups of the evaluation teams. Further, they did not address important aspects of quality evaluation, such as feasibility analysis of the outcome measures and data collection, monitoring of data quality, and consideration of the methods and measures employed in similar evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

Activities to prevent quality problems need to be incorporated in the guidelines for evaluation planning. Additionally, evaluators could benefit from guidance in evaluation planning related to the different set-ups of the evaluation teams.

摘要

背景

总结性电子健康评估常常缺乏质量,这影响了证据的可推广性及其在实践和进一步研究中的应用。为了保证质量,评估规划指南中建议了许多活动。本研究旨在考察一个多国家和跨学科背景下的电子健康评估规划案例,并为电子健康评估规划指南提供建议。

方法

通过案例研究开发了一种实证电子健康评估过程。使用模式匹配技术,将实证过程与选定的电子健康评估规划指南进行了比较。

结果

跨学科和跨国团队的规划需要进行广泛的协商和调整,以支持未来使用所产生的证据。评估规划指南没有为评估团队的不同设置提供具体的策略。此外,它们没有涉及质量评估的重要方面,例如结局测量和数据收集的可行性分析、数据质量监测,以及类似评估中所采用的方法和措施的考虑。

结论

需要在评估规划指南中纳入预防质量问题的活动。此外,评估人员可以从与评估团队的不同设置相关的评估规划方面获得指导。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd29/7888081/57a46a57e919/12911_2021_1399_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd29/7888081/ca41063e9dc8/12911_2021_1399_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd29/7888081/57a46a57e919/12911_2021_1399_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd29/7888081/ca41063e9dc8/12911_2021_1399_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd29/7888081/57a46a57e919/12911_2021_1399_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Planning a holistic summative eHealth evaluation in an interdisciplinary and multi-national setting: a case study and propositions for guideline development.在跨学科和多国环境中规划整体总结性电子健康评估:案例研究和指南制定建议。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Feb 17;21(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01399-9.
2
Interdisciplinary eHealth Practice in Cancer Care: A Review of the Literature.癌症护理中的跨学科电子健康实践:文献综述。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Oct 25;14(11):1289. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14111289.
3
Standards as applied in reality: a case study on the translation of standards in eHealth evaluation practice.实际应用中的标准:以电子健康评估实践中的标准翻译为例的研究
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Nov 29;19(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0975-9.
4
Evidence-Based Evaluation of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Literature Review.基于证据的电子健康干预评估:系统文献综述
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 23;20(11):e10971. doi: 10.2196/10971.
5
Towards a Framework for National eHealth Evaluation and Monitoring: A Combined Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approach Using Sweden as Example.迈向国家电子健康评估与监测框架:以瑞典为例的自上而下与自下而上相结合的方法
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019 Aug 21;264:954-958. doi: 10.3233/SHTI190365.
6
Stakeholder driven indicators for eHealth performance management.电子健康绩效管理的利益相关者驱动指标
Eval Program Plann. 2017 Aug;63:82-92. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 30.
7
Going digital: a narrative overview of the clinical and organisational impacts of eHealth technologies in hospital practice.走向数字化:电子健康技术在医院实践中临床及组织影响的叙述性概述
Aust Health Rev. 2017 Dec;41(6):646-664. doi: 10.1071/AH16233.
8
A new method for assessing content validity in model-based creation and iteration of eHealth interventions.一种在基于模型的电子健康干预措施创建与迭代中评估内容效度的新方法。
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Apr 15;17(4):e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3811.
9
Critical Care Network in the State of Qatar.卡塔尔国重症监护网络。
Qatar Med J. 2019 Nov 7;2019(2):2. doi: 10.5339/qmj.2019.qccc.2. eCollection 2019.
10
How to Prevent the Drop-Out: Understanding Why Adults Participate in Summative eHealth Evaluations.如何防止退出:理解成年人参与总结性电子健康评估的原因。
J Healthc Inform Res. 2023 Mar 4;7(1):125-140. doi: 10.1007/s41666-023-00131-8. eCollection 2023 Mar.

本文引用的文献

1
Implementing Information and Communication Technology to Support Community Aged Care Service Integration: Lessons from an Australian Aged Care Provider.实施信息通信技术以支持社区老年护理服务整合:来自澳大利亚一家老年护理服务提供商的经验教训
Int J Integr Care. 2017 Apr 10;17(1):9. doi: 10.5334/ijic.2437.
2
Constructive eHealth evaluation: lessons from evaluation of EHR development in 4 Danish hospitals.建设性电子健康评估:丹麦4家医院电子病历系统开发评估的经验教训
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Apr 20;17(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0444-2.
3
A literature review for large-scale health information system project planning, implementation and evaluation.
关于大规模健康信息系统项目规划、实施与评估的文献综述。
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan;97:86-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.09.007. Epub 2016 Oct 1.
4
Steps in Moving Evidence-Based Health Informatics from Theory to Practice.将基于证据的健康信息学从理论转化为实践的步骤。
Healthc Inform Res. 2016 Oct;22(4):255-260. doi: 10.4258/hir.2016.22.4.255. Epub 2016 Oct 31.
5
e-Health: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology.电子健康:欧洲心脏病学会的立场声明。
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 1;37(1):63-6. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv416. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
6
Unmet Need: Improving mHealth Evaluation Rigor to Build the Evidence Base.未满足的需求:提高移动健康评估的严谨性以建立证据基础。
J Health Commun. 2015;20(10):1224-9. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018624. Epub 2015 Jun 4.
7
"Real-world" practical evaluation strategies: a review of telehealth evaluation.“真实世界”实践评估策略:远程医疗评估综述
JMIR Res Protoc. 2014 Dec 17;3(4):e75. doi: 10.2196/resprot.3459.
8
Establishing guidelines for executing and reporting Internet intervention research.制定互联网干预研究的实施和报告指南。
Cogn Behav Ther. 2011;40(2):82-97. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2011.573807.
9
Guideline adaptation and implementation planning: a prospective observational study.指南改编和实施计划:一项前瞻性观察研究。
Implement Sci. 2013 May 8;8:49. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-49.
10
Exploring a methodology for eHealth indicator development.探索电子健康指标开发方法。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:338-42.