A number of barriers exist to the conduct of successful health services information research. These include the conflict between the pragmatic concerns of running a project alongside existing information services and the need for rigorous and transferable experimental studies, the tension between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms and the proven lack of success at integrating successful projects into mainstream service delivery. The authors describe apost hocevaluation conducted for Northern and Yorkshire R&D in the UK of six pilot sites supporting evidence-based health care (EBHC). This provided valuable insights into the requirements for information services evaluation. Drawing upon a model from nursing research the authors describe how a blend of techniques from action research, reflective practice and quality assurance could provide the individual, group and organizational perspectives required for successful evaluation research.
References
1.
NHS Executive. Information for Health. Leeds: NHSE, 1998.
2.
Clark J R.The research process: a beginner’s guide. Health Libraries Review1997; 14(3): 145-155.
3.
Sackett D L, Wennberg J E.Choosing the best research deign for each question: It’s time to stop squabbling over the ‘best’ methods. BMJ1997; 315 (7123): 1636.
4.
Liebscher P.Quantity with quality? Teaching quantitative and qualitative methods in an LIS Master’s program. Library Trends1998; 46 (4): 668-680.
5.
Clayton P.No easy option: case study research in libraries. Australian Academic and Research Libraries1995; 26 (2): 69-75.
6.
Stenhouse L.Using case study in library research. Social Science Information Studies1981; 1(4): 221-230.
7.
Urquhart C J, Massiter C A, Thomas R E, Sharp S and Smith J.Integrating information services with vocational training: the GIVTS experience. In: Dowd C, Eaglestone B and Bowns I (eds.) SHIMR 99: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Health Information Management Research. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1999.
8.
Stringer E T.Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. London: Sage, 1996.
9.
Hannigan G G.Action research: methods that make sense. Medical Reference Services Quarterly1997; 16 (1): 53-58.
10.
Baskerville R L, Wood-Harper A T.A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology1996; 11 (3): 235-246.
11.
Lau F.Toward a framework for action research in information systems studies. Information Technology and People1999; 12(2): 148-175.
12.
Hart E, Bond M.Action Research for Health & Social Care: A Guide to Practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1995.
13.
Holter I M, Schwartz-Barcott D.Action research: What is it? How has it been used and how can it be used in nursing?Journal of Advanced Nursing1993; 18: 298-304.
14.
Zuber-Skerritt O.Action Research in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, 1992.
15.
Schon D.The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Avebury: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1991.
16.
Boud D, Cohen R, Walker D (eds.). Using Experience for Learning. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1993.
17.
Goodall D.Use of diaries in library and information research. Library and Information Research News1994; 18 (59): 17-21.
18.
Marshall J G.Using evaluation research methods to improve quality. Health Libraries Review1995; 12(3): 159-172.
19.
Wilson T.Research methods for hospital libraries. Bibliotheca Medica Canadiana1987; 8 (4): 190-199.
20.
The Australian Council of Health Care Standards. Quality Assurance in Practice: An overview of the concept and examples of activities. Zetland, Australia: The Australian Council of Health Care Standards, 1988.
21.
Anderson B (ed.). Quality Assurance for Occupational Therapists: A Resource Kit. Zetland, Australia: The Australian Council of Healthcare Standards, 1993.
22.
Grant A, Buteau M, Richards Y, Delisle E, Laplante P, Niyonsenga T;Xhignesse M.Informatics methodologies for evaluation research in the practice setting. Methods of Information in Medicine1998; 37 (2): 178-181.
23.
Hatten R, Knapp D, Salonga R.Action Research: Comparison with the concepts of ‘The Reflective Practitioner’ and ‘Quality Assurance’, 1997. http://www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/Reader/rdr.htm
24.
Banwell L.Evaluating information services In: Booth A and Walton G. Managing Knowledge in Health Services. London: Library Association, 2000; 173-181.
