Understanding end-user support for health information technology: atheoretical framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Support is often considered an important factor for successful implementation and realising the benefits of health information technology (HIT); however, there is a dearth of research on support and theoretical frameworks to characterise it. OBJECTIVE: To develop and present a comprehensive, holistic, framework for characterising enduser support that can be applied to various settings and types of information systems. METHOD: Scoping review of the medical informatics and information systems literature. RESULTS: A theoretical framework of end-user support is presented. It includes the following facets: support source, location of support, support activities, and perceived characteristics of support and support personnel. CONCLUSION: The proposed framework may be a useful tool for describing and characterising enduser support for HIT. it may also be used by decision makers and implementation leaders for planning purposes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".