Context and Approach in Reporting Evaluations of Electronic Health Record–Based Implementation Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic health records (EHRs) are ubiquitous yet still evolving, resulting in a moving target for determining the effects of context (features of the work environment, such as organization, payment systems, user training, and roles) on EHR implementation projects. Electronic health records have become instrumental in effecting quality improvement innovations and providing data to evaluate them. However, reports of studies typically fail to provide adequate descriptions of contextual details to permit readers to apply the findings. As for any evaluation, the quality of reporting is essential to learning from, and disseminating, the results. Extensive guidelines exist for reporting of virtually all types of applied health research, but they are not tailored to capture some contextual factors that may affect the outcomes of EHR implementations, such as attitudes toward implementation, format and amount of training, post go-live support, amount of local customization, and time diverted from direct interaction with patients to computers. Nevertheless, evaluators of EHR-based innovations can choose reporting guidelines that match the general purpose of their evaluation and the stage of their investigation (planning, protocol, execution, and analysis) and should report relevant contextual details (including, if pertinent, any pressures to help justify the huge investments and many years required for some implementations). Reporting guidelines are based on the scientific principles and practices that underlie sound research and should be consulted from the earliest stages of planning evaluations and onward, serving as guides for how evaluations should be conducted as well as reported.
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 | 0.772 | 0.844 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".