Accurate evaluation of healthcare information systems (HCIS) relies upon the choice of appropriate indicators. Iranian healthcare and health industry professionals were surveyed, by means of a descriptive cross sectional study, in order to identify the indicators they considered most relevant to the evaluation of healthcare information systems currently in use in Iran. It was concluded that effective evaluation of HCIS should encompass a variety of perspectives and methodologies (including qualitative methodologies), focus upon technical, economic and organisational concerns, and involve diversely constituted research teams.
AbdelhakM.GrostickS.HankenA.JacobsE. (2007). Health information: Management of a strategic resource. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders.
2.
Ave RasoulA.Khani JaghargN. (2004). Performance evaluation in information technology projects. Tadbir Manajing Magazine149: 33–37.
3.
BirkmeyerC.M.BatesD.W.BirkmeyerJ.D. (2002). Will electronic order entry reduce health care costs?Effective Clinical Practice5(2), 67–74.
4.
BowlesK. (1997). The barriers and benefits of nursing information systems. Computers in Nursing15(4): 191–196.
5.
BurkleT.AmmenwerthE.ProkoschH.DudeckJ. (2001). Evaluation of clinical information systems. What can be evaluated and what cannot?Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice7(4): 373–85.
6.
CookT.D.CampbellD.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
7.
CronholmS.GoldkuhlG. (2003). Six generic types of information systems evaluation. The 10th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation (ECIT-2003). Madrid.
8.
DeLoneW.H.McLeanE.R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems19(4): 9–30.
9.
FarshidP. (2002). Survey of the attitudes of medical records personal on hospital information system development at 2001–2002. MSc (Medical Records) thesis, Department of Health Information Management, Iran University of Medical Sciences.
10.
GaddC.S.PenrodL.E. (2001). Assessing physician attitudes regarding use of an outpatient EMR: A longitudinal, multi-practice study. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium 2001:194–198.
11.
GeislerE.HellerO. (1998). Management of medical technology: Theory practice and cases. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publisher.
12.
GremyF.FesslerJ. M.BonninM. (1999). Information systems evaluation and subjectivity. International Journal of Medical Informatics56: 13–23.
13.
HeathfieldH.PittyD.HankaR. (1998). Evaluating information technology in health care: Barriers and challenges. British Medical Journal316 (7149): 1959–1961.
14.
HeathfieldH.A.PeelV.HudsonK.S.MackayL.MarleyT. (1997). Evaluating large scale health information systems: From practice towards theory. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium: 116–120.
15.
KaplanB. (1998). Social Interactionist framework for information systems studies: The 4 Cs. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 & 8.6 Joint Working Conference on Information Systems: Current issues and future changes: 327–339.
16.
KeshayjeeK.TroyenS.HolbrookA.M.VanderMolenD. (2001). Measuring the success of electronic medical record implementation using electronic and survey data. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium: 309–312. Available at: http://www.amia.org/pubs/proceedings/symposia/2001/D010001610.pdf (accessed 14 December 2004).
17.
KingJ.A.MorrisL.L.Fitz-GibbonC.T. (1987). How to assess program implementation. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications.
18.
KushnirukA. (2002). Evaluation in the design of health information systems: Application of approaches emerging from usability engineering. Computers in Biology and Medicine32(3): 141–149.
LittlejohnsP.WyattC. J.GavicanL. (2003). Evaluating computerized health information systems: Hard lesson still to be learnt. British Medical Journal326: 860–863.
21.
ManningJ.McConnellE. (1997). Technology assessment: A framework for generating questions useful in evaluating nursing information systems. Computers in Nursing15(3): 141–146.
22.
MitchellE.SullivanF. (2001). A descriptive feast but evaluative famine: Systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1997–1980. British Medical Journal322: 279–282. Available at: http://pubmed-central.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=26582&rendertype (accessed 27 July 2004).
23.
MoehrJ.R. (2002). Evaluation: Salvation or nemesis of medical informatics?Computers in Biology and Medicine32: 113–125.
24.
NahmR.PostonI. (2000). Measurement of the effects of an integrated, point-of-care computer system on quality of nursing documentation and patient satisfaction. Computers in Nursing, 18(5), 220–229.
25.
NevilleD.GatesK.MacDonaldD.BarronM.TuckerS.CottonS.Gerard FarrellG.HoekmanT.BornsteinS.O'ReillyS. (2004). Toward an evaluation framework for electronic health records initiatives: A proposal for an evaluation framework. Available at: http://www.nlchi.nl.ca/pdf/final_framework.pdf. (accessed 6 March 2004).
26.
ProttiD. (2002). The power of principles and premises: Using them to help define the EHR. Healthcare Management Forum15(3): 46–48.
27.
RossiP.H.FreemanH.E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (fifth edition). Newbury Park, California, Sage Publications.
28.
SeddonP. (2001). IT evaluation revisited: Plus ca changes (Abstract). Proceedings of Eighth European Conference on Information Technology (ECITE). Oxford, United Kingdom.
29.
StoopA.P.BergM. (2003). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in patient care information system evaluation: Guidance for the organisational decision maker. Methods of Information in Medicine42(4): 458–462.
30.
United Kingdom Institute of Health Informatics for ERDIP (2001) March. Project Review and Objective Evaluation (PROBE) for electronic patient and health record projects. Available at: www.nlchi.nf.ca/pdf/final_evaluation_report.pdf (accessed 27 October 2004).
31.
WyattJ.C.WyattS.M. (2003). When and how to evaluate health information systems?International Journal of Medical Informatics69(2–3): 251–259.
