2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104247
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating health information technologies: A systematic review of framework recommendations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The technical feasibility case study was conducted using data gathered from direct observations, technical specification reports and schemas, meeting notes, internal reports and internal presentations. The case study report was developed using SQUIRE 2.0 [ 8 ] and Health Information Technology (HIT) [ 9 ] reporting guidelines.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The technical feasibility case study was conducted using data gathered from direct observations, technical specification reports and schemas, meeting notes, internal reports and internal presentations. The case study report was developed using SQUIRE 2.0 [ 8 ] and Health Information Technology (HIT) [ 9 ] reporting guidelines.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The patient and parent ePROM questionnaire was developed by the evaluation team based on findings from systematic reviews of HIT implementation research [ 9 , 10 ]. These reviews identified key constructs that are associated with successful HIT implementations, including attitudes and acceptance of health technologies and the accessibility of HIT systems.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…HIT implementation research also highlights that HIT-related Participant, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) factors need to be carefully considered during the assessment of HITs 8. This is because PICO factors can influence judgements about whether the findings from assessment settings are likely to be generalisable to other health contexts; key issues may include whether user groups are familiar with and accepting of new technologies; whether technologies can be equally well integrated into alternative HIT infrastructures and consideration of whether the effects that are measured and reported during HIT assessments are relevant and important to HIT implementers and patients.…”
Section: Participant Intervention Comparison and Outcome Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6, No. 4, www.jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jpkm dilakukan evaluasi terhadap sistem yang sudah diimplementasikan secara sistematis di masa yang akan datang melalui pendekatan metode yang tepat dan melibatkan kelompok pemangku kepentingan yang lebih luas (Andargoli et al, 2017;Erlirianto, Ali, & Herdiyanti, 2015;Neame et al, 2020). Keberhasilan kegiatan pengabdian masyarakat ini ditunjukkan dengan diselesaikannya masalah duplikasi data rekam medis pada SIMPUS dan meningkatnya pengetahuan pegawai puskesmas di wilayah Kabupaten Kulon Progo.…”
Section: Hasil Dan Pembahasanunclassified