Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Study Questions to Study Design: Exploring the Full Range of Informatics Study Types

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evaluation Methods in Biomedical and Health Informatics

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

  • 1549 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter address evaluation studies specifically in biomedical and health informatics. It introduces methods for identifying and expressing the questions that give focus to a study. It then describes ten informatics-specific study types that can guide study teams toward a design that is a best match to the study questions.

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

Access this chapter

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 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    That said, studies of closed-loop devices that function with no direct human intermediation or interaction can employ many of the study types described here, with “users” in a passive role.

References

  • Abbott PA, Weinger MB. Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities - Redux A homage to Bentzi Karsh and Robert wears. Appl Ergonom. 2020;82:102973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colicchio TK, Cimino JJ, Del Fiol G. Unintended consequences of nationwide electronic health record adoption: challenges and opportunities in the post-meaningful use era. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:13313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles M, McColl E, Steen N, Rousseau N, Grimshaw J, Parkin D, et al. Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2002;325:941–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman CP, Rubin JC, Sullivan KJ. Toward an information infrastructure for global health improvement. Yearb Med Inform. 2017;26:16–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grembowski D. The practice of health program evaluation. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care - an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:542–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, Hashmat B, Koppel R, Overhage JM, et al. Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray MD, Harris LE, Overhage JM, Zhou XH, Eckert GJ, Smith FE, et al. Failure of computerized treatment suggestions to improve health outcomes of outpatients with uncomplicated hypertension: results of a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24:324–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen JM. Program evaluation: forms and approaches. 3rd ed. London: Routledge; 2020.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Posovac EJ. Program evaluation: methods and case studies. London: Routledge; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roever L. PICO: model for clinical questions. Evid Based Med Pract. 2018;3:1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singal AG, Higgins PD, Waljee AK. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2014;5:45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigl BH, Gaydos CA, Kost G, Beyette FR Jr, Sabourin S, Rompalo A, et al. The value of clinical needs assessments for point-of-care diagnostics. Point Care. 2012;11:108–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witkin BR, Altschuld JW. Planning and conducting needs assessments: a practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarbrough DB, Shulha LM, Hopson RK, Caruthers FA. The program evaluation standards: a guide for evaluators and evaluation users. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasnoff WA, Humphreys BL, Overhage JM, Detmer DE, Brennan PF, Morris RW, et al. A consensus action agenda for achieving the national health information infrastructure. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:332–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen PY, McAlearney AS, Sieck CJ, Hefner JL, Huerta TR. Health information technology (HIT) adaptation: refocusing on the journey to successful HIT implementation. JMIR Med Inform. 2017;5:28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Charles P. Friedman

  2. Department of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Jeremy C. Wyatt

  3. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Joan S. Ash

Authors
  1. Charles P. Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy C. Wyatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joan S. Ash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles P. Friedman .

Answers to Self-Tests

Answers to Self-Tests

Self-Test 3.1

  1. 1a.

    ii

  2. 1b.

    iii

  3. 1c.

    i

  4. 1d.

    iii

  5. 1e.

    ii

  1. 2a.

    Questions (a) and (e) are appropriately specific study questions.

  2. 2b.

    For Question a:

    • P = researchers

    • I = digital lab notebook

    • C = users vs. non-users of notebook

    • O = identifying salient information

    For Question e:

    • P = medical residents

    • I = information resource designed to improve diagnosis

    • C = (implied) before use and after use comparison

    • O = quality of diagnostic hypotheses

Self-Test 3.2

  1. 1.

    Problem impact

  2. 2.

    Usability test

  3. 3.

    Need assessment

  4. 4.

    Design validation

  5. 5.

    Field function

  6. 6.

    Lab function

  7. 7.

    Organizational

  8. 8.

    Field user effect

  9. 9.

    Problem impact.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Friedman, C.P., Wyatt, J.C., Ash, J.S. (2022). From Study Questions to Study Design: Exploring the Full Range of Informatics Study Types. In: Evaluation Methods in Biomedical and Health Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86453-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86453-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86452-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86453-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation