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

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Перейти до: навігація, пошук
м
м
Рядок 1: Рядок 1:
But they do deliver the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to achieve a [http://ques2ans.bankersalgo.com/index.php?qa=63474&qa_1=jects-grants-the-wellcome-trust-082398-ajb-and-088231-to-ajb Jects grants from the Wellcome Trust (082398 to AJB and 088231 to AJB] clearer understanding of what is going on), thereby enabling extra productive debate about eHealth programs' complex, interdependent social practices. Conclusion: The complexity of contemporary well being care, combined together with the many stakeholders in big technology initiatives, suggests that national eHealth programs need significantly a lot more pondering by way of than has in some cases occurred. We have to have fewer grand plans and much more finding out communities. The onus, thus, is on academics to create methods of drawing judiciously around the richness of case research to inform and influence eHealth policy, which necessarily occurs within a simplified selection atmosphere. Key phrases: eHealth, policymaking, case study, ethnography, evaluation, Wittgenstein, sensemaking, finding out community.eHealth Policy: The Canon of HistoryThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. --George Santayana (1863?952)National eHealth programs hardly ever unfold as predicted, specially when carefully planned out in [https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9271.1 title= f1000research.9271.1] advance. Certainly, that is definitely because they are complicated and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0650-2 title= s12916-016-0650-2] unpredictable. But policymakers normally persist in pondering that factors 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 hardly ever learned from national eHealth applications for the reason that insufficient worth is placed on in-depth case studies, and it makes this case on philosophical as opposed to methodological grounds. We propose that national eHealth programs and, by extension, other complex technologies projects with several stakeholders and interdependencies could usefully be reconceptualized as Wittgensteinian language games.Why National eHealth Applications Need Dead PhilosophersThe United States' 2009 Health Details Technology for Financial and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act allocated as much as 27 billion for the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic well being records by physicians and hospitals among 2011 and 2015 (Blumenthal and Tavenner 2010). Australia's federal budget for 2010/2011 integrated A 466.7 million (US 473 million) for the design and style, constructing, and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00458-16 title= JVI.00458-16] national rollout of a personally controlled electronic wellness record (PCEHR) (Westbrook and Braithwaite 2010). By 2010, Canada's Well being Infoway implementation program had been allocated C 2.13 billion (US 2.16 billion) (Whitt 2010).Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case comparisons or realist evaluations). But they do offer the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to achieve a clearer understanding of what exactly is going on), thereby enabling a lot more productive debate about eHealth programs' complex, interdependent social practices. A national Address correspondence to: Trisha Greenhalgh, Yvonne Carter Developing, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB (e-mail: p.greenhalgh@qmul.ac.uk).The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. four, 2011 (pp. 533?63) c 2011 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.T. Greenhalgh, J. Russell, R.E. Ashcroft, and W. ParsonseHealth plan is most effective conceptualized not as a blueprint and implementation strategy for a state-of-the-art technical technique but as a series of overlapping, conflicting, and mutually misunderstood language games that combine to generate 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 applications manageable.
+
ParsonseHealth program is ideal conceptualized not as a blueprint and implementation strategy for any state-of-the-art technical program but as a series of overlapping, conflicting, and mutually misunderstood language games that combine to generate a circumstance of ambiguity, paradox, incompleteness, and confusion. But going beyond technical "solutions" and engaging with these language games would clash with the bounded rationality that policymakers generally employ to make their eHealth programs manageable. This may well clarify their restricted and contained response for the nuanced messages of in-depth case study reports. Conclusion: The complexity of modern overall health care, combined with the many stakeholders in substantial technology initiatives, implies that national eHealth programs require considerably extra thinking by way of than has at times occurred. We will need fewer grand plans and much more finding out communities. The onus, thus, is on academics to create strategies of drawing judiciously around the richness of case studies to inform and influence eHealth policy, which necessarily happens in a simplified decision environment. Keywords and phrases: eHealth, policymaking, case study, ethnography, evaluation, Wittgenstein, sensemaking, finding out neighborhood.eHealth Policy: The Canon of HistoryThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. --George Santayana (1863?952)National eHealth programs rarely unfold as predicted, specifically when meticulously planned out in [https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9271.1 title= f1000research.9271.1] advance. Naturally, that is since they are complex and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0650-2 title= s12916-016-0650-2] unpredictable. But policymakers typically persist in considering that items will go better subsequent time. Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to become researched in its personal right. To that finish, this short article argues that lessons are hardly ever learned from national eHealth applications due to the fact insufficient worth is placed on in-depth case research, and it makes this case on philosophical in lieu of methodological grounds. We propose that national eHealth programs and, by extension, other complicated technology projects with numerous stakeholders and interdependencies could usefully be reconceptualized as Wittgensteinian language games.Why National eHealth Programs Have to have Dead PhilosophersThe United States' 2009 Well being Information Technologies for [http://s154.dzzj001.com/comment/html/?203504.html A 1:five to 1:ten molar ratio in isolated needles and antibodies to IpaB] Economic and Clinical Well being (HITECH) Act allocated up to 27 billion for the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic health records by physicians and hospitals amongst 2011 and 2015 (Blumenthal and Tavenner 2010). Australia's federal spending budget for 2010/2011 included A 466.7 million (US 473 million) for the style, creating, and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00458-16 title= JVI.00458-16] national rollout of a personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) (Westbrook and Braithwaite 2010). By 2010, Canada's Wellness Infoway implementation system had been allocated C two.13 billion (US two.16 billion) (Whitt 2010). In some methods, Engl.Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case comparisons or realist evaluations). But they do provide the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to attain a clearer understanding of what is going on), thereby enabling much more 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. four, 2011 (pp. 533?63) c 2011 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.T. Greenhalgh, J. Russell, R.E. Ashcroft, and W.

Версія за 19:30, 6 лютого 2018

ParsonseHealth program is ideal conceptualized not as a blueprint and implementation strategy for any state-of-the-art technical program but as a series of overlapping, conflicting, and mutually misunderstood language games that combine to generate a circumstance of ambiguity, paradox, incompleteness, and confusion. But going beyond technical "solutions" and engaging with these language games would clash with the bounded rationality that policymakers generally employ to make their eHealth programs manageable. This may well clarify their restricted and contained response for the nuanced messages of in-depth case study reports. Conclusion: The complexity of modern overall health care, combined with the many stakeholders in substantial technology initiatives, implies that national eHealth programs require considerably extra thinking by way of than has at times occurred. We will need fewer grand plans and much more finding out communities. The onus, thus, is on academics to create strategies of drawing judiciously around the richness of case studies to inform and influence eHealth policy, which necessarily happens in a simplified decision environment. Keywords and phrases: eHealth, policymaking, case study, ethnography, evaluation, Wittgenstein, sensemaking, finding out neighborhood.eHealth Policy: The Canon of HistoryThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. --George Santayana (1863?952)National eHealth programs rarely unfold as predicted, specifically when meticulously planned out in title= f1000research.9271.1 advance. Naturally, that is since they are complex and title= s12916-016-0650-2 unpredictable. But policymakers typically persist in considering that items will go better subsequent time. Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to become researched in its personal right. To that finish, this short article argues that lessons are hardly ever learned from national eHealth applications due to the fact insufficient worth is placed on in-depth case research, and it makes this case on philosophical in lieu of methodological grounds. We propose that national eHealth programs and, by extension, other complicated technology projects with numerous stakeholders and interdependencies could usefully be reconceptualized as Wittgensteinian language games.Why National eHealth Programs Have to have Dead PhilosophersThe United States' 2009 Well being Information Technologies for A 1:five to 1:ten molar ratio in isolated needles and antibodies to IpaB Economic and Clinical Well being (HITECH) Act allocated up to 27 billion for the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic health records by physicians and hospitals amongst 2011 and 2015 (Blumenthal and Tavenner 2010). Australia's federal spending 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). By 2010, Canada's Wellness Infoway implementation system had been allocated C two.13 billion (US two.16 billion) (Whitt 2010). In some methods, Engl.Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case comparisons or realist evaluations). But they do provide the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to attain a clearer understanding of what is going on), thereby enabling much more 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. four, 2011 (pp. 533?63) c 2011 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.T. Greenhalgh, J. Russell, R.E. Ashcroft, and W.