CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Evaluation Framework for Telemedicine Using the Logical Framework Approach and a Fishbone Diagram

Open access
Chang, Hyejung·2015·Healthcare Informatics Research
DOI 10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.230PMC PMC4659879
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Technological advances using telemedicine and telehealth are growing in healthcare fields, but the evaluation framework for them is inconsistent and limited. This paper suggests a comprehensive evaluation framework for telemedicine system implementation and will support related stakeholders' decision-making by promoting general understanding, and resolving arguments and controversies. METHODS: This study focused on developing a comprehensive evaluation framework by summarizing themes across the range of evaluation techniques and organized foundational evaluation frameworks generally applicable through studies and cases of diverse telemedicine. Evaluation factors related to aspects of information technology; the evaluation of satisfaction of service providers and consumers, cost, quality, and information security are organized using the fishbone diagram. RESULTS: It was not easy to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework for telemedicine since evaluation frameworks for telemedicine are very complex with many potential inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and stakeholders. A conceptual framework was developed that incorporates the key dimensions that need to be considered in the evaluation of telehealth implementation for a formal structured approach to the evaluation of a service. The suggested framework consists of six major dimensions and the subsequent branches for each dimension. CONCLUSIONS: To implement telemedicine and telehealth services, stakeholders should make decisions based on sufficient evidence in quality and safety measured by the comprehensive evaluation framework. Further work would be valuable in applying more comprehensive evaluations to verify and improve the comprehensive framework across a variety of contexts with more factors and participant group dimensions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.230

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The authors have previously argued that a rigid logic model approach is counterproductive because eHealth technologies are typically introduced into a complex system in a turbulent and contested policy context.

    “While some implementation frameworks were designed around a rigid (and apparently systematic) logic model [51], we have previously argued that such an approach is counterproductive because eHealth technologies are typically introduced into a complex system in a turbulent and contested policy context [52].”

    From Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies (2017) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Introduction describes telemedicine as controversial and involving stakeholders with differing views. But Section IV, “Logical framework approach for telemedicine” (page unavailable), says the logical framework approach is required precisely because telemedicine involves complex issues and multiple stakeholders; it does not argue that the approach is counterproductive. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [9]Lustig TA Institute of Medicine The role of telehealth in an evolving health care environment: workshop summary Washington (DC) National Academies Press 2012 24901186
  2. [25]Van Dyk L The development of a telemedicine service maturity model [dissertation] Stellenbosch, South Africa Stellenbosch University 2013
  3. [30]Goldberg LR Assessing quality of telehealth: home heart failure care comparing patient-driven technology models Proceedings of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 2007 Annual Conference 2007 Sep 26-28 Bethesda, MD
  4. [31]Grain H Schaper LK Health informatics: digital health service delivery: the future is now! Amsterdam IOS Press 2013 23823310

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chang, H.
Affiliations
Kyung Hee University (KR)
Corresponding author
Chang, Hyejung
ORCID
Chang, Hyejung
Venue
Healthcare Informatics Research
Publisher
The Korean Society of Medical Informatics
Published
2015
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
230
ISSN
  • 2093-3681 (ISSN-L)
  • 2093-369X
DOI
10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.230
PMC
PMC4659879
OpenAlex
W2274131038
Cited by
74
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Healthcare Informatics Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
telemedicine, evaluation framework, logical framework approach, fishbone diagram, monitoring and evaluation, service provider satisfaction, customer satisfaction, cost evaluation, quality of care, information security, stakeholder decision-making

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