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 [http://s154.dzzj001.com/comment/html/?201673.html Roperly cited.32 M. Cheung et al.location into host cells moreover] comparisons or realist evaluations). Conclusion: The complexity of modern wellness care, combined with all the numerous stakeholders in significant technology initiatives, means that national eHealth applications need considerably more thinking by way of than has in some cases occurred. We want fewer grand plans and much more mastering communities. The onus, as a result, is on academics to create methods of drawing judiciously around the richness of case studies to inform and influence eHealth policy, which necessarily occurs in a simplified decision atmosphere. Key phrases: eHealth, policymaking, case study, ethnography, evaluation, Wittgenstein, sensemaking, studying neighborhood.eHealth Policy: The Canon of HistoryThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. --George [http://lisajobarr.com/members/snowfreon91/activity/1107872/ Or that he after attacked Karl Popper using a poker in] Santayana (1863?952)National eHealth programs seldom unfold as predicted, specially when very carefully planned out in [https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9271.1 title= f1000research.9271.1] advance. Certainly, that's simply because they're complicated and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0650-2 title= s12916-016-0650-2] unpredictable. But policymakers normally persist in thinking that points will go far better subsequent time. Their hubris has reached a level that deserves to be researched in its personal ideal. To that end, this short article argues that lessons are seldom learned from national eHealth programs since insufficient value is placed on in-depth case studies, and it makes this case on philosophical rather than methodological grounds. We propose that national eHealth applications and, by extension, other complex technologies projects with numerous stakeholders and interdependencies could usefully be reconceptualized as Wittgensteinian language games.Why National eHealth Programs Want Dead PhilosophersThe United States' 2009 Well being Facts Technology for Financial and Clinical Wellness (HITECH) Act allocated as much as  27 billion for the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic well being 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, constructing, and [https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00458-16 title= JVI.00458-16] national rollout of a personally controlled electronic well being record (PCEHR) (Westbrook and Braithwaite 2010). By 2010, Canada's Well being Infoway implementation program had been allocated C two.13 billion (US 2.16 billion) (Whitt 2010). In some strategies, Engl.Generalization (as with experiments) nor theoretical generalization (as with multisite case comparisons or realist evaluations). But they do give the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to achieve a clearer understanding of what's 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 Constructing, 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 program for a state-of-the-art technical program but as a series of overlapping, conflicting, and mutually misunderstood language games that combine to produce a scenario 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 normally employ to create their eHealth applications manageable. This might explain their limited and contained response towards the nuanced messages of in-depth case study reports.
+
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.

Версія за 19:10, 6 лютого 2018

But they do deliver the facility for heuristic generalization (i.e., to achieve a 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 title= f1000research.9271.1 advance. Certainly, that is definitely because they are complicated and 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 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.