Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Implementing telehealth applications represents a substantial investment of resources, which is one reason why success is of great interest. Many research and evaluation studies have investigated measures of successful telehealth systems. However, the term "telehealth" represents a wide range of variables including clinical application, characteristics of the information being transmitted, temporal relationships of data transfer and the organizational context. These sources of variability pose many challenges for evaluation as well as for building a cumulative history of research. A conceptual framework is required that assists in categorizing results and drawing conclusions based on an accumulation of findings. One measure of "success" in health care is quality patient care and this reflects a primary reason for ICT investments. For this reason, Donabedian's work in evaluating quality provides the basis for the proposed framework. DeLone and McLean's definitions of IS success assist in conceptualizing Donabedian's structure-outcome-process variables in a telehealth context. Multiple evaluation approaches have been used to address different types of questions. Prior to the technologies being introduced to clinical care, there are usually many studies to demonstrate their effectiveness. Health Technology Assessment examines a broader context than the technology alone, including costs and comparing alternatives that would exist in the absence of telehealth. It considers performance measures; outcomes; summary measures, operational considerations, and other issues. Program Evaluation examines use of the technology to provide a service or deliver a program. Evaluation questions often address whether the program goals have been met and if it is operating as expected. Perhaps of greater concern than the evaluation approach taken is generalizability of findings. Recent studies have given inadequate attention to defining what is done (i.e. comparison of telehealth to most appropriate alternative), identifying the beneficiaries of telehealth (i.e. ensuring randomly selected participants take part) and what is measured (i.e. including benefits, drawbacks and side effects of telehealth). Evaluation efforts and frameworks have identified "success" factors such as technical acceptability of the system, cost/benefit/effectiveness, organizational support, satisfaction, recruitment and retention, client outcomes such as quality of life, acceptance by consumers and providers. Less is known about the relationship among these variables and whether the findings around one variable are generalizable to other settings or applications. For example, organizational support may be essential for successful provider-patient interactions via videoconference, which result in higher quality of life. A conceptual framework would assist in accumulating this type of evidence and supporting more advanced research efforts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».