Participatory Design, User Involvement and Health IT Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
End user involvement and input into the design and evaluation of information systems has been recognized as being a critical success factor in the adoption of information systems. Nowhere is this need more critical than in the design of health information systems. Consistent with evidence from the general software engineering literature, the degree of user input into design of complex systems has been identified as one of the most important factors in the success or failure of complex information systems. The participatory approach goes beyond user-centered design and co-operative design approaches to include end users as more active participants in design ideas and decision making. Proponents of participatory approaches argue for greater end user participation in both design and evaluative processes. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of increased user involvement in design is explored in this contribution in the context of health IT. The contribution will discuss several approaches to including users in design and evaluation. Challenges in IT evaluation during participatory design will be described and explored along with several case studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it