Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles

Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles
Much has been written about why electronic health (eHealth) initiatives fail. Less attention has been paid to why evaluations of such initiatives fail to deliver the insights expected of them. PLoS Medicine has published three papers offering a "robust" and "scientific" approach to eHealth evaluation. One recommended systematically addressing each part of a "chain of reasoning", at the centre of which was the program's goals. Another proposed a quasi-experimental step-wedge design, in which late adopters of eHealth innovations serve as controls for early adopters. Interestingly, the authors of the empirical study flagged by these authors as an exemplary illustration of the step-wedge design subsequently abandoned it in favour of a largely qualitative case study because they found it impossible to establish anything approaching a controlled experiment in the study's complex, dynamic, and heavily politicised context.

The approach to evaluation presented in the previous PLoS Medicine series rests on a set of assumptions that philosophers of science call "positivist": that there is an external reality that can be objectively measured; that phenomena such as "project goals", "outcomes", and "formative feedback" can be precisely and unambiguously defined; that facts and values are clearly distinguishable; and that generalisable statements about the relationship between input and output variables are possible.

Read on-line: Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles

Download from eHealthNews.eu Portal's mirror: Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles (.pdf, 99 KB).

Citation: Greenhalgh T, Russell J (2010) Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles. PLoS Med 7(11): e1000360. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000360

Copyright: © 2010 Greenhalgh, Russell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Most Popular Now

Study Finds One-Year Change on CT Scans …

Researchers at National Jewish Health have shown that subtle increases in lung scarring, detected by an artificial intelligence-based tool on CT scans taken one year apart, are associated with disease...

New AI Tools Help Scientists Track How D…

Artificial intelligence (AI) can solve problems at remarkable speed, but it’s the people developing the algorithms who are truly driving discovery. At The University of Texas at Arlington, data scientists...

Yousif's Story with Sectra and The …

Embarking on healthcare technology career after leaving his home as a refugee during his teenage years, Yousif is passionate about making a difference. He reflects on an apprenticeship in which...

AI Tool Offers Deep Insight into the Imm…

Researchers explore the human immune system by looking at the active components, namely the various genes and cells involved. But there is a broad range of these, and observations necessarily...

New Antibiotic Targets IBD - and AI Pred…

Researchers at McMaster University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have made two scientific breakthroughs at once: they not only discovered a brand-new antibiotic that targets inflammatory bowel diseases...

Highland to Help Companies Seize 'N…

Health tech growth partner Highland has today revealed its new identity - reflecting a sharper focus as it helps health tech companies to find market opportunities, convince target audiences, and...