Design Thinking and Evaluation Using an Ontology

Win

et al. 2016

AJIS

Self Cite

Australia has a large number of health program initiatives whose comprehensive assessment will help refine and redefine priorities by highlighting areas of emphasis, under-emphasis, and non-emphasis. The objectives of our research are to: (a) systematically map all the programs onto an ontological framework, and (b) systemically analyse their relative emphases at different levels of granularity. We mapped all the health program initiatives onto an ontology with five dimensions, namely: (a) Policy-scope, (b) Policy-focus, (c) Outcomes, (d) Type of care, and (e) Population served. Each dimension is expanded into a taxonomy of its constituent elements. Each combination of elements from the five dimensions is a possible policy initiative component. There are 30,030 possible components encapsulated in the ontology. It includes, for example: (a) National financial policies on accessibility of preventive care for family, and (b) Local-urban regulatory policies on cost of palliative care for individual-aged. Four of the authors mapped all of Australia’s health programs and initiatives on to the ontology. Visualizations of the data are used to highlight the relative emphases in the program initiatives. The dominant emphasis of the program initiatives is: [National] [educational, personnel-physician, information] policies on [accessibility, quality] of [preventive, wellness] care for the [community]. However, although (a) information is emphasized technology is not; and (b) accessibility and quality are emphasized cost, satisfaction, and quality are not. The ontology and the results of the mapping can help systematically reassess and redirect the relative emphases of the programs and initiatives from a systemic perspective.

Section: Ontology Of Health Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Australia’s National Health Programs: An Ontological Mapping

Win

et al. 2016

AJIS

Self Cite

“…Our method of constructing an ontology is explained by Ramaprasad and Syn (2013) and Ramaprasad and Syn (2015). It was iterative amongst the authors of the paper (a physician in training and two information systems professors) and by the authors with the extent literature.…”

Section: Construction Of the Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This selectivity results in fragmentation of the research agenda; the sum of the parts simply falls short of making the whole. There is a need to articulate and make the combinatorial complexity of mHealth visible to facilitate effective research on mHealth systems (Ramaprasad and Syn, 2013). "The current confusion in the nomenclature and classification hinder telemedicine research … it frustrates our efforts to reach a reasonable understanding of what we already know and what we need to know.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roadmap for mHealth Research

Cameron

Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies

2016

Self Cite

mHealth research has been growing exponentially in recent years. But, without a clear definition of the mHealth domain, the research has been ad hoc and selective. A roadmap is necessary to guide the research and harness mHealth's full potential. We present an ontology of mHealth to define its domain. We map the extent research on mHealth in 2014 onto the ontology and highlight the frequency of coverage of different topics. We discuss how (a) a frequently researched topic may be important, but may also be simply easy, convenient, and overemphasized; (b) an infrequently researched topic may be unimportant, but may also be simply difficult, inconvenient, and underemphasized; (c) and an unresearched topic may have been overlooked or simply infeasible. We then discuss how the emphases can be balanced in the roadmap for mHealth. Using ontological mapping the roadmap can be updated periodically to assess and guide mHealth research.

“…Researchers and practitioners focus on different parts of the whole but not on the whole -analogous to the story of the five blind men and the elephant [6,7]. There is a need to make the combinatorial complexity of eGovernment visible to facilitate their effective design and evaluation [8]. We use an ontology to represent the complexity of eGovernment and make it visible.…”

Section: An Ontology Of Egovernmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This selectivity results in fragmentation of the research and development agenda; the sum of the parts simply falls short of making the whole. There is a need to articulate and make the combinatorial complexity of eGovernment visible to facilitate both the effective design and evaluation of eGovernment systems [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ontology of eGovernment

Sánchez-Ortíz

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

2015

Self Cite

Part 3: Services, Processes and InfrastructureInternational audienceAmidst this rapid explosion of interest in eGovernment there is absent a clear definition of the concept and its domain. We review the extant definitions of the term and present an ontology of eGovernment to articulate its combinatorial complexity. The ontology parsimoniously encapsulates the logic of eGovernment. It moves away from technology-based conceptualizations to a systemic one. It makes the ‘elephant’ visible. It can be used to articulate the components and fragments which constitute eGovernment using structured natural English sentences and phrases. It serves as a multi-disciplinary lens to study the topic drawing upon concepts from information systems, knowledge management, public administration, and information technology. The ontology can be used to systematically map the state-of-the-research and the state-of-the-practice in eGovernment, discover the gaps in research and between research and practice, and formulate a strategy to bridge the gaps