Developing Electronic Cooperation Tools: A Case From Norwegian Health Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Many countries aim to create electronic cooperational tools in health care, but the progress is rather slow. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to uncover how the authoritys' financing policies influence the development of electronic cooperational tools within public health care. METHODS: An interpretative approach was used in this study. We performed 30 semistructured interviews with vendors, policy makers, and public authorities. Additionally, we conducted an extensive documentation study and participated in 18 workshops concerning information and communication technology (ICT) in Norwegian health care. RESULTS: We found that the interorganizational communication in sectors like health care, that have undergone an independent development of their internal information infrastructure would find it difficult to create electronic services that interconnect the organizations because such connections would affect all interconnected organizations within the heterogenic structure. The organizations would, to a large extent, depend on new functionality in existing information systems. Electronic patient records play a central role in all parts of the health care sector and therefore dependence is established to the information systems and theirs vendors. The Norwegian government authorities, which run more than 80% of the Norwegian health care, have not taken extraordinary steps to compensate for this dependency-the government's political philosophy is that each health care institution should pay for further electronic patient record development. However, cooperational tools are complex due to the number of players involved and the way they are intertwined with the overall workflow. The customers are not able to buy new functionalities on the drawing table, while the electronic patient record vendors are not willing to take the economic risk in developing cooperational tools. Thus, the market mechanisms in the domain are challenged. We also found that public projects that were only financed for the first steps of project management could partially explain why many initiatives did not get past the initial planning and specification stages, but were stopped before further development could be made. Vendors were often unwilling to provide further own contribution without guaranteed return. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that the authorities take a coordinating role and provide financial help for development of electronic cooperational tools for health because the regular market mechanisms are insufficient to push these developments to the market. It is, however, critical that the role of users be considered, and for users to decide which developments should go forward.
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 | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».