Evaluation is an essential component of the introduction of new technologies, treatment modalities and models of service delivery across the health-care sector. Such work attracts significant levels of public funding, but little attention has been paid to understanding evaluation as more than a set of applied methodological activities. This paper sets out an agenda for a more complex and richer understanding of evaluation as a set of professional and organizational dynamics.
References
1.
Buxton M, Hanney S.Evaluating the NHS research and development programme: will the programme give value for money?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine1998; 91(Supp 35): 2-6.
2.
Faulkner A.Strange bedfellows in the laboratory of the NHS. An analysis of the new science of health technology assessment in the NHS. In: Elston M A (ed.) The Sociology of Medical Science and Technology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
3.
Wootton R.Telemedicine in the National Health Service. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine1998; 91: 614-621.
4.
Anderson J G, Aydin, C E.Overview: theoretical perspectives and methodologies for the evaluation of health care information systems. In: Anderson J, Aydin C E, Jay S J (eds.) Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Methods and Applications. London: Sage.
5.
Grigsby J, Sanders J H.Telemedicine: where it is and where it’s going. Annals of Internal Medicine1998; 129: 123-127.
6.
Grigsby J, Kaehny M M, Sandberg E J, Schlenker R E, Shaughnessy P W.Effects and effectivenesss of telemedicine. Health Care Financial Review1995; 17: 115-131.
7.
Mair F, Haycox A, May C, Ellis N, Williams T.A review of telemedicine cost effectiveness studies. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 1999, in press.
8.
Whitten P, Mair F.Can patient satisfaction be generalized across telemedicine contexts?Proceedings of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, USA1999.
9.
ACR standard for teleradiology, available at http://www.acr.org.
10.
Taylor P.A survey of research in telemedicine. 1: Telemedicine systems. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare1998; 4: 1-17.
11.
Brecht R M, Gray C, Peterson C, Youngblood B.The University of Texas Medical Branch - Texas Department of Criminal Justice Telemedicine Project: findings from the first year of operation. Telemedicine Journal1996; 2: 25-35.
12.
Taylor P.A survey of research in telemedicine. 2: Telemedicine services. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare1998; 4: 63-71.
13.
Whitten P, Allen A.Organizational implications of telemedicine: a study of the Kansas telemedicine program. Telemedicine Journal1995; 1: 203-213.
14.
Reiser S.Medicine and the Reign of Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
15.
Yoshinka Y.Technological transition in the introduction and domestication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Danish Hospitals. Proceedings: EASST ’98. Lisbon, Portugal, 1998.
16.
Yoxen E.Seeing with sound: a study of the development of medical images. In: Bijker Wet al. (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1987.
17.
Bloomfield Bet al. Doctors as managers: constructing systems and users in the NHS. In: Bloomfield B (ed.) Information technology and organisations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
18.
May C, Gask L, Ellis N, Atkinson T, Mair F, Smith C, Pidd S, Esmail A.Telepsychiatry evaluation in North West England: preliminary results of a qualitative study. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 1999, in press.
