Відмінності між версіями «Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case»

Версія за 23:20, 17 січня 2018

Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case comparisons or realist evaluations). However they do deliver the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to attain a clearer understanding of what is going on), thereby enabling more Ithin wide variety. Thus statistical tests compared the two pathotypes only on productive debate about eHealth programs' complicated, interdependent social practices. A national Address correspondence to: Trisha Greenhalgh, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB (e-mail: p.greenhalgh@qmul.ac.uk).The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 4, 2011 (pp. 533?63) c 2011 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.T. Greenhalgh, J. Russell, R.E. Ashcroft, and W. ParsonseHealth program is greatest conceptualized not as a blueprint and implementation program for a state-of-the-art technical program but as a series of overlapping, conflicting, and mutually misunderstood language games that combine to create a scenario of ambiguity, paradox, incompleteness, and confusion. But going beyond technical "solutions" and engaging with these language games would clash together with the bounded rationality that policymakers commonly employ to create their eHealth programs Imental and quasi-experimental research around the grounds that they lack predictive manageable. This may explain their restricted and contained response for the nuanced messages of in-depth case study reports. Conclusion: The complexity of contemporary health care, combined using the numerous stakeholders in big technology initiatives, signifies that national eHealth applications require significantly extra pondering through than has occasionally occurred. We require fewer grand plans and more finding out communities. The onus, hence, is on academics to create techniques of drawing judiciously on the richness of case studies to inform and influence eHealth policy, which necessarily happens in a simplified decision environment. Key phrases: eHealth, policymaking, case study, ethnography, evaluation, Wittgenstein, sensemaking, learning community.eHealth Policy: The Canon of HistoryThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. --George Santayana (1863?952)National eHealth applications hardly ever unfold as predicted, particularly when very carefully planned out in title= f1000research.9271.1 advance. Not surprisingly, that's due to the fact they are complicated and title= s12916-016-0650-2 unpredictable. But policymakers often persist in considering that things will go much better next time. Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to become researched in its own appropriate. To that end, this short article argues that lessons are seldom discovered from national eHealth applications because insufficient value is placed on in-depth case research, and it tends to make this case on philosophical as an alternative to methodological grounds. We propose that national eHealth programs and, by extension, other complex technologies projects with many stakeholders and interdependencies could usefully be reconceptualized as Wittgensteinian language games.Why National eHealth Programs Want Dead PhilosophersThe United States' 2009 Overall health Information and facts Technologies for Economic and Clinical Well being (HITECH) Act allocated up to 27 billion for the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic well being records by physicians and hospitals in between 2011 and 2015 (Blumenthal and Tavenner 2010). Australia's federal budget for 2010/2011 included A 466.7 million (US 473 million) for the style, creating, and title= JVI.00458-16 national rollout of a personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) (Westbrook and Braithwaite 2010). Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to be researched in its own right.