BMJ  2003;327:1205-1209 (22 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1205

Information in practice

Integrating service development with evaluation in telehealthcare: an ethnographic study

¹ Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 3DN, ² Department of Primary Care, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, ³ Institute of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YJ, ⁴ School of Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester M14 5NP

Objectives To identify issues that facilitate the successful integration of evaluation and development of telehealthcare services.

Design Ethnographic study using various qualitative research techniques to obtain data from several sources, including in-depth semistructured interviews, project steering group meetings, and public telehealthcare meetings.

Setting Seven telehealthcare evaluation projects (four randomised controlled trials and three pragmatic service evaluations) in the United Kingdom, studied over two years. Projects spanned a range of specialties—dermatology, psychiatry, respiratory medicine, cardiology, and oncology.

Participants Clinicians, managers, technical experts, and researchers involved in the projects.

Results and discussion Key problems in successfully integrating evaluation and service development in telehealthcare are, firstly, defining existing clinical practices (and anticipating changes) in ways that permit measurement; secondly, managing additional workload and conflicting responsibilities brought about by combining clinical and research responsibilities (including managing risk); and, thirdly, understanding various perspectives on effectiveness and the limitations of evaluation results beyond the context of the research study.

Conclusions Combined implementation and evaluation of telehealthcare systems is complex, and is often underestimated. The distinction between quantitative outcomes and the workability of the system is important for producing evaluative knowledge that is of practical value. More pragmatic approaches to evaluation, that permit both quantitative and qualitative methods, are required to improve the quality of such research and its relevance for service provision in the NHS.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Is a consultation needed?

Frank Sullivan and Jeremy C Wyatt
BMJ 2005 331: 625-627. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Evaluating telehealthcare needs flexibility
BMJ 2003 327: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• May, C., Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology 43: 535-554 [Abstract]  
• Mort, M., Finch, T., May, C. (2009). Making and Unmaking Telepatients: Identity and Governance in New Health Technologies. Science Technology Human Values 34: 9-33 [Abstract]  
• Murtagh, M J, Thomson, R G, May, C R, Rapley, T, Heaven, B R, Graham, R H, Kaner, E F, Stobbart, L, Eccles, M P (2007). Qualitative methods in a randomised controlled trial: the role of an integrated qualitative process evaluation in providing evidence to discontinue the intervention in one arm of a trial of a decision support tool. Qual Saf Health Care 16: 224-229 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sullivan, F., Wyatt, J. C (2005). Is a consultation needed?. BMJ 331: 625-627 [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>