Amirhossein Eslami Andargoli1, Helana Scheepers2, Diana Rajendran2, Amrik Sohal3. 1. Faculty of Business and Law, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: aeslamiandargoli@swin.edu.au. 2. Faculty of Business and Law, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of health information systems (HISs) is complicated because of the complex nature of the health care domain. Various studies have proposed different frameworks to reduce the complexity in the assessment of these systems. The aim of these frameworks is to provide a set of guidelines for the evaluation of the adequacy of health care information systems. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to analyse studies on the evaluation of HISs by applying a content, context and process (CCP) framework to address the 'who', 'what', 'how', 'when', and 'why' of the evaluation processes used. This will allow for a better understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of various HISs evaluation frameworks, and will pave the way for developing a more complete framework for HISs. METHOD: A systematic literature review on HIS evaluation studies was undertaken to identify the currently available HIS evaluation frameworks. Five academic databases were selected to conduct this systematic literature review. RESULTS: Most of the studies only address some, but not all, of the five main questions, i.e. the who, what, how, when, why, and that there was a lack of consensus in the way these questions were addressed. The critical role of context was also largely neglected in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of HISs is complex. The health care domain is highly context sensitive and in order to have a complete assessment of HISs, consideration of contextual factors is necessary. Specifically, to have the right set of criteria to measure the 'what', the answer to the 'who' of the evaluation is necessary. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of health information systems (HISs) is complicated because of the complex nature of the health care domain. Various studies have proposed different frameworks to reduce the complexity in the assessment of these systems. The aim of these frameworks is to provide a set of guidelines for the evaluation of the adequacy of health care information systems. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to analyse studies on the evaluation of HISs by applying a content, context and process (CCP) framework to address the 'who', 'what', 'how', 'when', and 'why' of the evaluation processes used. This will allow for a better understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of various HISs evaluation frameworks, and will pave the way for developing a more complete framework for HISs. METHOD: A systematic literature review on HIS evaluation studies was undertaken to identify the currently available HIS evaluation frameworks. Five academic databases were selected to conduct this systematic literature review. RESULTS: Most of the studies only address some, but not all, of the five main questions, i.e. the who, what, how, when, why, and that there was a lack of consensus in the way these questions were addressed. The critical role of context was also largely neglected in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of HISs is complex. The health care domain is highly context sensitive and in order to have a complete assessment of HISs, consideration of contextual factors is necessary. Specifically, to have the right set of criteria to measure the 'what', the answer to the 'who' of the evaluation is necessary. Copyright Â
Authors: Polina V Kukhareva; Charlene Weir; Guilherme Del Fiol; Gregory A Aarons; Teresa Y Taft; Chelsey R Schlechter; Thomas J Reese; Rebecca L Curran; Claude Nanjo; Damian Borbolla; Catherine J Staes; Keaton L Morgan; Heidi S Kramer; Carole H Stipelman; Julie H Shakib; Michael C Flynn; Kensaku Kawamoto Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Francesc Saigí-Rubió; José Juan Pereyra-Rodríguez; Joan Torrent-Sellens; Hans Eguia; Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat; David Novillo-Ortiz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Shalini Ahuja; Charlotte Hanlon; Dan Chisholm; Maya Semrau; Dristy Gurung; Jibril Abdulmalik; James Mugisha; Ntokozo Mntambo; Fred Kigozi; Inge Petersen; Rahul Shidhaye; Nawaraj Upadhaya; Crick Lund; Sara Evans-Lacko; Graham Thornicroft; Oye Gureje; Mark Jordans Journal: BJPsych Open Date: 2019-08-06
Authors: Ashley Marie Polhemus; Jan Novák; Jose Ferrao; Sara Simblett; Marta Radaelli; Patrick Locatelli; Faith Matcham; Maximilian Kerz; Janice Weyer; Patrick Burke; Vincy Huang; Marissa Fallon Dockendorf; Gergely Temesi; Til Wykes; Giancarlo Comi; Inez Myin-Germeys; Amos Folarin; Richard Dobson; Nikolay V Manyakov; Vaibhav A Narayan; Matthew Hotopf Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 4.773