Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31783847›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Standards as applied in reality: a case study on the translation of standards in eHealth evaluation practice.

Monika Jurkeviciute

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Monika JurkeviciuteCentre for Healthcare Improvement (CHI), Chalmers University of Technology, 41296, Gothenburg, Sweden. monika.jurkeviciute@chalmers.se.ORCID 0000-0001-9824-3649
Chalmers University of Technology · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApplication of standards is a way to increase quality in an evaluation study. However, standards are used insufficiently in eHealth evaluation, affecting the generalization of the knowledge generated. This study aimed to explore how standards are used in a practical setting of an eHealth evaluation, and to identify the factors that can hinder their use.

methodsThe data were collected in a multi-national and interdisciplinary eHealth evaluation study targeted at the elderly people suffering from mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia. The study was carried out in four countries and funded by the European Union. The collected data included meeting minutes (n = 8) and e-mail correspondence (n = 261) between partners. The chronological sequence of events related to the use of standards was established. Subsequently, the hindering factors related to the use of standards were identified from the sequence.

resultsThe use of four standards was described, reflecting a variety of related processes or barriers that emerge during eHealth evaluation. The processes differed based on the type of the standard. Specifically, evaluation frameworks were found to be conceptual standards and they were easy to agree upon, while standardized metrics were more tangible and their use triggered negotiations. Further, the following factors hindered the use of standards in eHealth evaluations: (1) inadequacy of a standard to address a target population or a disease, (2) insufficient resources to use a standard, (3) lack of experience in using a standard, and (4) lack of validation of a standard in a particular location.

conclusionsStandardization initiatives in eHealth evaluation provide a blueprint for evaluation, but their practical application is problematic. The practical circumstances of an evaluation study can cause deviations in the standards, thus producing heterogeneity in the evaluation methodologies.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentStandard of CareAgedCognitive DysfunctionDelivery of Health CareDementiaEuropean UnionHumansTelemedicineBarrierseHealthEvaluationFactorsInter-organizational cooperationStandardTranslation

Identifiers

PMID31783847
PMCPMC6884841
OpenAlexW2991512224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.