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:
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 [http://trucksneverempty.com/members/stitch6girdle/activity/289701/ 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 [http://femaclaims.org/members/viola7turkey/activity/1307707/ 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 [https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9271.1 title= f1000research.9271.1] advance. Not surprisingly, that's due to the fact they are complicated and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0650-2 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 [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). Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to be researched in its own right.
+
533?63) c 2011 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.T. Greenhalgh, J. Russell, R.E. Ashcroft, and W. ParsonseHealth program is most effective conceptualized not as a blueprint and implementation strategy for any state-of-the-art technical system but as a series of overlapping, conflicting, and mutually misunderstood language games that combine to create a predicament of ambiguity, paradox, incompleteness, and confusion. But going beyond technical "solutions" and engaging with these language games would clash using the bounded rationality that policymakers typically employ to make their eHealth applications manageable. This could explain their limited and contained response towards the nuanced messages of in-depth case study reports. Conclusion: The complexity of contemporary overall health care, combined using the many stakeholders in significant technologies initiatives, means that national eHealth programs need significantly extra thinking through than has sometimes occurred. We will need fewer grand plans and more [https://www.medchemexpress.com/LY2157299.html Galunisertib custom synthesis] studying communities. The onus, thus, is on academics to develop ways of drawing judiciously around the richness of case studies to inform and influence eHealth policy, which necessarily happens inside a simplified choice atmosphere. Key phrases: eHealth, policymaking, case study, ethnography, evaluation, Wittgenstein, sensemaking, studying community.eHealth Policy: The Canon of HistoryThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. --George Santayana (1863?952)National eHealth applications rarely unfold as predicted, particularly when very carefully planned out in [https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9271.1 title= f1000research.9271.1] advance. Naturally, that is certainly since they may be complex and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0650-2 title= s12916-016-0650-2] unpredictable. But policymakers often persist in pondering that items will go greater subsequent time. Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to be researched in its personal suitable. To that end, this article argues that lessons are seldom learned from national eHealth programs mainly because insufficient value is placed on in-depth case studies, and it tends to make this case on philosophical instead of methodological grounds. We propose that national eHealth applications and, by extension, other complex technology projects with various stakeholders and interdependencies could usefully be reconceptualized as Wittgensteinian language games.Why National eHealth Programs Need to have Dead PhilosophersThe United States' 2009 Wellness Information and facts Technologies for [https://www.medchemexpress.com/Linsitinib.html Linsitinib site] Economic and Clinical Wellness (HITECH) Act allocated up to  27 billion for the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic overall health records by physicians and hospitals involving 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, building, and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00458-16 title= JVI.00458-16] national rollout of a personally controlled electronic overall health record (PCEHR) (Westbrook and Braithwaite 2010). By 2010, Canada's Health Infoway implementation plan had been allocated C 2.13 billion (US 2.16 billion) (Whitt 2010). In some ways, Engl.Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case comparisons or realist evaluations). However they do offer the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to achieve a clearer understanding of what exactly is going on), thereby enabling extra productive debate about eHealth programs' complex, interdependent social practices. A national Address correspondence to: Trisha Greenhalgh, Yvonne Carter Creating, 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.

Версія за 08:09, 26 січня 2018

533?63) c 2011 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.T. Greenhalgh, J. Russell, R.E. Ashcroft, and W. ParsonseHealth program is most effective conceptualized not as a blueprint and implementation strategy for any state-of-the-art technical system but as a series of overlapping, conflicting, and mutually misunderstood language games that combine to create a predicament of ambiguity, paradox, incompleteness, and confusion. But going beyond technical "solutions" and engaging with these language games would clash using the bounded rationality that policymakers typically employ to make their eHealth applications manageable. This could explain their limited and contained response towards the nuanced messages of in-depth case study reports. Conclusion: The complexity of contemporary overall health care, combined using the many stakeholders in significant technologies initiatives, means that national eHealth programs need significantly extra thinking through than has sometimes occurred. We will need fewer grand plans and more Galunisertib custom synthesis studying communities. The onus, thus, is on academics to develop ways of drawing judiciously around the richness of case studies to inform and influence eHealth policy, which necessarily happens inside a simplified choice atmosphere. Key phrases: eHealth, policymaking, case study, ethnography, evaluation, Wittgenstein, sensemaking, studying community.eHealth Policy: The Canon of HistoryThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. --George Santayana (1863?952)National eHealth applications rarely unfold as predicted, particularly when very carefully planned out in title= f1000research.9271.1 advance. Naturally, that is certainly since they may be complex and title= s12916-016-0650-2 unpredictable. But policymakers often persist in pondering that items will go greater subsequent time. Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to be researched in its personal suitable. To that end, this article argues that lessons are seldom learned from national eHealth programs mainly because insufficient value is placed on in-depth case studies, and it tends to make this case on philosophical instead of methodological grounds. We propose that national eHealth applications and, by extension, other complex technology projects with various stakeholders and interdependencies could usefully be reconceptualized as Wittgensteinian language games.Why National eHealth Programs Need to have Dead PhilosophersThe United States' 2009 Wellness Information and facts Technologies for Linsitinib site Economic and Clinical Wellness (HITECH) Act allocated up to 27 billion for the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic overall health records by physicians and hospitals involving 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, building, and title= JVI.00458-16 national rollout of a personally controlled electronic overall health record (PCEHR) (Westbrook and Braithwaite 2010). By 2010, Canada's Health Infoway implementation plan had been allocated C 2.13 billion (US 2.16 billion) (Whitt 2010). In some ways, Engl.Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case comparisons or realist evaluations). However they do offer the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to achieve a clearer understanding of what exactly is going on), thereby enabling extra productive debate about eHealth programs' complex, interdependent social practices. A national Address correspondence to: Trisha Greenhalgh, Yvonne Carter Creating, 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.