Current evaluations of information technology in health care are often inadequate.
Open accessAbstract
EDITOR,—Two recent articles debated the value of information technology to the NHS and called for further evidence from evaluation studies to inform future investment in information technology.1 2 These articles draw attention to both the scarcity of evaluation studies of information technology in health care and the lack of scientific rigour of such studies. They reflect current opinion, which strongly advocates the use of economic analyses and randomised controlled trials. While we agree with the need to …
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It is often difficult simply to generalise from results obtained using RCTs when studying complex interventions such as eHealth technologies.
“It is therefore often difficult simply to generalise from results obtained using RCTs when studying complex interventions such as eHealth technologies [16],[17],[20].”
From Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation (2009) · cites this paper as [17]
Studies adopting an experimental design approach fail to take sufficient account of the contextual considerations, which play a major role in the success or failure of the intervention being studied.
“The main reason for this deficiency is that studies adopting an experimental design approach fail to take sufficient account of the contextual considerations, which play a major role in the success or failure of the intervention being studied.”
From Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation (2009) · cites this paper as [17]
The proposed model has the additional advantage of providing a means to understand the implementation process.
“This model has the additional advantage of providing a means to understand the implementation process [17].”
From Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation (2009) · cites this paper as [17]
RCTs and similar experimental design methods alone are often less well suited to evaluate the impact of eHealth interventions in a complex environment or to study the effect they have on the delivery of care.
“But whilst RCTs and similar experimental design methods may be appropriate for studying interventions under controlled clinical conditions, these design methodologies alone are often less well suited to evaluate the impact of eHealth interventions in a complex environment or to study the effect they have on the delivery of care [16],[17].”
From Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation (2009) · cites this paper as [17]
Health care professionals are unlikely to adopt eHealth interventions until they are "fit for purpose".
“- Until eHealth interventions are “fit for purpose”, health care professionals are unlikely to adopt them and this risks implementation failure.”
From Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation (2009) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
What value do computers provide to NHS hospitals?
Lock, C. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7043.1407a · Cited by 38 · see citing works
From black bag to black box: will computers improve the NHS?
Donaldson, L. J. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7043.1371a · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kaplan, B. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00184-8 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Evaluating informatics applications – clinical decision support systems literature review
Kaplan, B. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00183-6 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation
Catwell, L., & Sheikh, A. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
The case for randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of clinical information systems
Liu, J. L. Y., & Wyatt, J. C. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.010306 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
- Authors
- Heathfield, H. A., & Buchan, I. E.
- Affiliations
- Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
- ORCID
- Buchan, Iain E
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1996-10-19
- Volume
- 313
- Issue
- 7063
- Pages
- 1008.1
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC2352340
- OpenAlex
- W2115305825
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- health information technology, National Health Service, evidence base, scientific rigor, economic evaluation, randomized controlled trials, health technology investment
- MeSH terms
- Evaluation Studies as Topic, United Kingdom, Information Services, State Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
