Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Evaluation Methods in Biomedical Informatics pp 338–361Cite as

Proposing and Communicating the Results of Evaluation Studies: Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Issues

  • Chapter

  • 3591 Accesses

Part of the book series: Health Informatics ((HI))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Miller RA, Patil R, Mitchell JA, Friedman CP, Stead WW. Preparing a medical informatics research grant proposal: general principles. Comput Biomed Res 1989;22:92–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Grant Application (PHS 398). Form approved September 30, 2004, OMB No. 0925-0001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Miller PL, Sittig DF. The evaluation of clinical decision support systems: what is necessary versus what is interesting. Med Inf (Lond) 1990;15:185–190.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Timpka T, Arborelius E. A method for study of dilemmas during health care consultations. Med Inf (Lond) 1991;16:55–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question BMJ 1997;315:1636.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, the CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285(15):1987–1991.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chalmers I, Altman DG, Egger M, Smith GD, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. London: BMJ Books, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jones R. Why do qualitative research? BMJ 1995;311;2 [editorial].

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindberg DA, Siegel ER, Rapp BA, Wallingford KT, Wilson SR. Use of MEDLINE by physicians for clinical problem solving. JAMA 1993;269:3124–3129.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Boynton P, Rigby M. Soft networks for bridging the gap between research and practice: illuminative evaluation of CHAIN. BMJ 2004;328(7449):1174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ziebland S, Chapple A, Dumelow C, Evans J, Prinjha S, Rozmovits L. How the internet affects patients’ experience of cancer: a qualitative study. BMJ 2004;328(7439):564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson R. NHS-wide networking and patient confidentiality. BMJ 1995;311:5–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wyatt JC. Clinical data systems. II. Components and techniques. Lancet 1994;344:1609–1614.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Heathfield H, Wyatt JC. The road to professionalism in medical informatics: a proposal for debate. Methods Inf Med 1995;34:426–433.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293(10):1223–1238.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Berner ES. Ethical and legal issues in the use of clinical decision support systems. J Healthcare Inf Manag 2002;16(4):34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brahams D, Wyatt J. Decision-aids and the law. Lancet 1989;2:632–634.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical studies of design related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061–1066.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada

    Kathryn J. Hannah PhD, RN (Adjunct Professor) (Adjunct Professor)

  2. Clinical Informatics Strategies Healthlink, Inc., Baltimore, MD, 21210

    Marion J. Ball EdD (Vice President) (Vice President)

  3. The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

    Marion J. Ball EdD (Vice President) (Vice President)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2006). Proposing and Communicating the Results of Evaluation Studies: Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Issues. In: Hannah, K.J., Ball, M.J. (eds) Evaluation Methods in Biomedical Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30677-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30677-3_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-25889-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-30677-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation