Abstract
Evaluation is the application of specific criteria to determine the value or merit of the object of the study. Ensuring that public health information systems (ISs) and programs are managed wisely is essential. Evaluation answers the question of “why” a system is necessary, by collecting the data and performing the analysis needed to make determinations of efficiency and effectiveness and is a critical component to any public health informatics (PHI) project. Evaluation should occur at all stages of a PHI project. By using a combination of formative and summative evaluation, a well-designed plan provides key data to stakeholders that allow for informed decision-making about continuing, replacing, enhancing or retiring a public health IS. The design of the evaluation plan begins with identifying a mental model (e.g., information value cycle or data-information system-context-rings) from which to view the project and the evaluation objectives and determine what to evaluate. Conceptual frameworks, evaluation strategies, and methodology toolkits help define how the evaluation plan is developed and executed. A comprehensive program (e.g., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s six-step evaluation framework) provides an example of an evaluation template.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Worthen BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpatrick JL. Program evaluation. 2nd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman; 1987.
Wagner JA. Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group; 2006. p. 16–8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR 1999;48(No. RR-11). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/index.htm. Accessed June 19, 2013.
Friedman CP. A “fundamental theorem” of biomedical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(2):169–70. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649317/?tool=pubmed. Last accessed 12 Mar 2013.
Scriven M. The methodology of evaluation. Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. In: AERA monograph series on curriculum evaluation, No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1967. p. 39–83.
Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, Bowman C, Guihan M, Hagedorn H, Kimmel B, Sharp ND, Smith JL. The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21 Suppl 2:S1–8.
Benedict LG. Traditional research versus evaluation. U.S. Department of Education. 1975. ERIC. Web. ED100959. Available from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100959.pdf. Cited 8 Apr 2013.
Unite for Sight. Module 10: Distinguishing evaluation from research. Available at: http://www.uniteforsight.org/evaluation-course/module10. Cited 1 Aug 2013.
Guba E. Significant differences. Edu Res. 1969;20:4–5.
Bainbridge L. Mental models in cognitive skill: the example of industrial process operation. In: Rogers Y, Rutherford A, Bibby PA, editors. Models in the mind. San Diego: Academic; 1992. p. 119–43.
Ammenwerth E, et al. Evaluation of health information systems—problems and challenges. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71(2):125–35.
Taylor RS. Value-added processes in the information life cycle. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1982;33:341–6.
Thacker SB, Qualters JR, Lee LM. Public health surveillance in the United States: evolution and challenges. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2012;61(Suppl):3–9.
Laventure M. State and local perspective on Public Health Data Standards: opportunities for strategic action. Presented at: Annual meeting on Public Health Data Standards Consortium, Bethesda, 16–18 March 2004. Powerpoint slides.
Avgerou C. The significance of context in information systems and organizational change. Inf Syst J. 2001;11(1):43–63.
Lorenzi NM, et al. Antecedents of the people and organizational aspects of medical informatics review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4(2):79–93.
Ramaprasad A, Rai A. Envisioning management of information. Omega. 1996;24(2):179–93.
Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(5):542–9.
Heeks R, Bathnagar S. Understanding success and failure in information age reform. In: Heeks R, editor. Reinventing government in the information age. London: Routledge; 1999. p. 49–74.
One Health Initiative Web site. URL: http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/. Last accessed 1 Apr 2013.
Kaufman D, et al. Applying an evaluation framework for health information system design, development, and implementation. Nurs Res. 2006;55(2):S37–42.
Stead WW, et al. Designing medical informatics research and library – resource projects to increase what is learned. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1(1):28–33.
Currie LM. Evaluation frameworks for nursing informatics. Int J Med Inform 2005;74(11–12):908–16.
Yusof MM, Parazafeiropoulou A, Paul RJ, Stergioulas LK. Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems. Int J Med Inform 2008;77(6):377–85.
Cronholm S, Goldkuhl G. Strategies for information systems evaluation-six generic types. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 2003;6(2):65–74.
Friedman CP, Wyatt J. Evaluation methods in biomedical informatics. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, 2006.
Westbrook JI, et al. Evaluating the impact of information communication technologies on complex organizational systems: a multi-disciplinary, multi-method framework. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107(Pt 2):1323–7.
Anderson JG. Evaluation in health informatics: social network analysis. Comput Biol Med. 2002;32(3):179.
Merrill J, et al. Description of a method to support public health information management: organizational network analysis. J Biomed Inform. 2007;40(4):422.
Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(3):166–206.
DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res. 1992;3(1):60–95.
Delone WH. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manage Inf Syst. 2003;19(4):9–30.
Fehrenbach N, Ross D, Hastings T, Renahan-White A. Towards measuring value: an evaluation framework for public health information systems. Public Health Informatics Institute. 2005. Web. Last accessed 1 Apr 2013.
Hebert M. Telehealth success: evaluation framework development. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;2:1145–9.
Cronholm S. Information Systems Evaluation-adding process descriptions to six evaluation types. European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation ECITE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Conferences Limited; 2004.
“tool, n.”. OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. Accessible from: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/203258?rskey=WzPh27&result=1. Cited 8 Apr 2013.
Health Resource and Services Administration. Health IT Adoption Toolbox. Accessed from: http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/toolbox/. Cited 8 Apr 2013.
Cusack CM, Byrne C, Hook JM, McGowan J, Poon EG, Zafar A. Health Information Technology Evaluation Toolkit: 2009 Update (Prepared for the AHRQ National Resource Center for Health Information Technology under Contract No. 290-04-0016.) AHRQ Publication No. 09-0083-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2009.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR. 1999;48 (No. RR-11). URL: http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/index.htm. Last accessed 12 Mar 2013.
Friedman CP. “Smallball” evaluation: a prescription for studying community-based information interventions. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(4 Suppl):S43.
Brender J. Handbook of evaluation methods for health informatics. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2006.
Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Incorporated; 2008.
Ericsson KA, Ralf TK, Clemens TR. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993;100(3):363.
Butler MA, Bender AD. Intensive care unit bedside documentation systems. Realizing cost savings and quality improvements. Comput Nurs. 1999;17(1):32.
Heathfield H, Pitty D, Hanka R. Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. BMJ. 1998;316:1959–61.
Ammenwerth E, Mansmann U, Mahler C, Kandert M, Eichstadter R. Are quantitative methods sufficient to show why wards react differently to computer-based nursing document? In: Surjan G, Engelbrecht R, McNair P, editors. Proceedings of the 17th international congress of the European Federation for Medical Informatics (Medical Informatics Europe 2002 – health Data in the Information Society), 25–29 Aug 2002, Budapest, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Vol. 90. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2002, p. 377–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fu, P.C., Tolentino, H., Franzke, L.H. (2014). Evaluation for Public Health Informatics. In: Magnuson, J., Fu, Jr., P. (eds) Public Health Informatics and Information Systems. Health Informatics. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4237-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4237-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4236-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4237-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)