Addis, T. R., B. Visscher, J. J. T. Addis, A. Gegov, G. Galal, and N. Clarke,
Exploring Architectural Modeling to Understand System Evolution,
, London, Portsmouth University and London Metropolitan University, December 2002.
Abstract
Moehr, J. R.,
"Evaluation: salvation or nemesis of medical informatics?",
Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 32, pp. 113–125, 2002.
AbstractThe currently prevailing paradigms of evaluation in medical/health informatics are reviewed. Some problems with application of the objectivist approach to the evaluation of real–rather than simulated–(health) information systems are identified. The rigorous application of the objectivist approach, which was developed for laboratory experiments, is difficult to adapt to the evaluation of information systems in a practical real-world environment because such systems tend to be complex, changing rapidly over time, and often existing in a variety of variants. Practical and epistemological reasons for the consequent shortcomings of the objectivist approach are detailed. It is argued that insistence on the application of the objectivist principles to real information systems may hamper rather than advance insights and progress because of this. Alternatives in the form of the subjectivist approach and extensions to both the objectivist and subjectivist approaches that circumvent the identified problems are summarized. The need to include systems engineering approaches in, and to further extend, the evaluation methodology is pointed out.
Carroll, C., P. Marsden, P. Soden, E. Naylor, J. New, and T. Dornan,
"Involving users in the design and usability evaluation of a clinical decision support system",
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 69, pp. 123–135, 2002.
AbstractAim: To design and evaluate a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to support cardiovascular risk prevention in type 2 diabetes. Methods: A preliminary requirements specification and three prototype CDSS interface designs were developed. Seven patients and seven clinicians conducted `usability tests' on five different task scenarios with the CDSS prototypes to test its effectiveness, efficiency and `user-friendliness'. Structured, qualitative questions explored their preferences for the different designs and overall impressions of clinical usefulness. Results: Patients and clinicians were enthusiastic about the CDSS and used it confidently after a short learning period. Some patients had difficulty interpreting clinical data, but most were keen to see the CDSS used to help them understand their diabetes, provided a clinician explained their results. Clinicians' main concern was that the CDSS would increase consultation times. Changes suggested by users were incorporated into the final interface design. Conclusion: We have successfully incorporated patients' and clinicians' views into the design of a CDSS, but it was an arduous process.
]