Evaluating Multiple Perspectives of a Connected Health Ecosystem

Noel Carroll, Marie Travers, Ita Richardson


Connected Health is an emerging model of care that engages technology to improve patient care and (re)habilitation. It encourages self-efficacy by developing client-centred care pathways and evidence-based interventions to reduce the need for hospital-led care and empower patients in their homes. It also promotes improved ‘connectivity’ between healthcare stakeholders by means of timely sharing and presentation of accurate and pertinent information about patient status. Connected Health initiatives can achieve this through smarter use of data, devices, communication platforms and people. However, there are few efforts which have established an evaluation model to encapsulate and assess the value and potential impact of Connected Health solutions from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. We examined information systems (IS) and health information systems (HIS) literature to identify whether a model could apply to Connected Health. However, many of the evaluation models are narrow in focus but have influenced our development of the Connected Health Evaluation Framework (CHEF). CHEF offers a generic approach which encapsulates a holistic view of a Connected Health evaluation process. It focuses on four key domains: end-user perception, business growth, quality management and healthcare practice.


  1. Carroll, N. (2014). In Search We Trust: Exploring How Search Engines are Shaping Society. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research (IJKSR), 5(1), 12-27.
  2. Caulfield, B. M., and Donnelly, S. C. (2013). What is Connected Health and why will it change your practice?. QJM, hct114.
  3. Christensen, C. M., Bohmer, R., and Kenagy, J. (2000). Will disruptive innovations cure health care?. Harvard business review, 78(5), 102-112.
  4. Dansky, K.H., Palmer, L., Shea, D., Bowles, K.H. (2001). “Cost Analysis of Telehomecare”. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health. September, pp. 225-232.
  5. Dávalos, M.E., French, M.T., Burdick, A.E., Simmons, S.C. (2009). “Economic Evaluation of Telemedicine: Review of the Literature and Research Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis”. Telemedicine and e-Health, December, pp. 933-948.
  6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, pp. 319-340.
  7. Delbanco, T., Walker, J., Bell, S. K., Darer, J. D., Elmore, J. G., Farag, N., Feldman, H.J., Mejilla, R., Ngo, L., Ralston, J.D., Ross, S.E. Trivedi, N., Vodicka, E., Leveille, S.G. (2012). Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Annals of internal medicine, 157(7), 461-470.
  8. Delone, W. H. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9- 30.
  9. DeLone, W. H., and McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information systems research, 3(1), 60-95.
  10. Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (2011). Knowledge Society Strategy: Report on e-Health Developments in Ireland. Retrieved on 02/02/2015 from Website: http://tinyurl.com/lrs3aja.
  11. Dixon, D. R. (1999). The behavioral side of information technology. International journal of medical informatics, 56(1), 117-123.
  12. ECHAlliance (2014). Connected Health - White Paper. Retrieved on 09/03/2015 from Website: http://cht.oulu.fi/uploads/2/3/7/4/23746055/connected _health.pdf.
  13. Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., and Schultz, A. (2005). Transforming health care from the inside out: advancing evidence-based practice in the 21st century. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(6), 335-344.
  14. Friedman, C. P., Wyatt, J.C. (1997). Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  15. Grant, A., Plante, I., and Leblanc, F. (2002). The TEAM methodology for the evaluation of information systems in biomedicine. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 32(3), 195-207.
  16. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), pp. 611-642.
  17. Heathfield, H., Pitty, D., and Hanka, R. (1998). Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. BMJ, 316(7149), 1959.
  18. Hebert, M.A, and Korabek, B. (2004). “Stakeholder Readiness for Telehomecare: Implications for Implementation”. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health. March, pp. 85-92.
  19. Kaplan B. (1997). Addressing organizational issues into the evaluation of medical systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc.; 4(2): 94-101.
  20. Kaplan, B. (2001). Evaluating informatics applicationssome alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. International journal of medical informatics, 64(1), 39- 56.
  21. Kuhn, K. A., Giuse, D.A. (2001). "From Hospital Information Systems to Health Information Systems - Problems, Challenges, Perspective," Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 63-76.
  22. Leveille, S. G., Walker, J., Ralston, J. D., Ross, S. E., Elmore, J. G., and Delbanco, T. (2012). Evaluating the impact of patients' online access to doctors' visit notes: designing and executing the OpenNotes project. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 12(1), 32.
  23. Mathur, A., Kvedar, J.C. and Watson, A.J. (2007). “Connected health: A new framework for evaluation of communication technology use in care improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes,” Current Diabetes Reviews, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 229-234.
  24. Meltsner, M. (2012). A patient's view of OpenNotes. Annals of internal medicine, 157(7), 523-524.
  25. Misuraca, G., Codagnone, C., and Rossel, P. (2013). From practice to theory and back to practice: Reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the information society. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S68-S82.
  26. O'Leary, P., Carroll, N., and Richardson, I. (2014). The Practitioner's Perspective on Clinical Pathway Support Systems. In Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 194-201). IEEE.
  27. O'Leary, P., Carroll, N., Clarke, P. and Richardson, I. (2015). Untangling the Complexity of Connected Health Evaluations, IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics 2015 (ICHI 2015) Dallas, Texas, USA, October 21-23.
  28. O'Neill, S.A., Nugent, C.D., Donnelly, M.P., McCullagh, P., and McLaughlin, J. (2012). Evaluation of connected health technology,” Technology and Health Care, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 151-167.
  29. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual. Journal of retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
  30. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Press.
  31. Postman, N. (1999). Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Publishers.
  32. Richardson, I. (2015). Connected Health: People, Technology and Processes, Lero-TR-2015-03, Lero Technical Report Series, University of Limerick.
  33. Rodrigues, R., Huber, M., and Lamura, G. (2012). Facts and figures on healthy ageing and long-term care. Itävalta: European Centre for Social and Welfare policy and Research: Vienna.
  34. Rojas, S. V., and Gagnon, M. P. (2008). A systematic review of the key indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness. Telemedicine and eHealth, 14(9), 896-904.
  35. Rudin, R.S., Jones, S.S., Shekelle, P., Hillestad, R.J. and Keeler, E.B. (2014). The Value of Health Information Technology: Filling the Knowledge Gap. The American Journal of Managed Care, Special Issue: Health Information Technology, Vol. 20, No. SP 17.
  36. Schwamm, L. H. (2014). Telehealth: Seven Strategies To Successfully Implement Disruptive Technology And Transform Health Care. Health Affairs, 33(2), 200- 206.
  37. Shaw, N. T. (2002). 'CHEATS': a generic information communication technology (ICT) evaluation framework. Computers in biology and medicine, 32(3), 209-220.
  38. Tuffaha, H. W., Gordon, L. G., and Scuffham, P. A. (2014). Value of information analysis in healthcare: a review of principles and applications. Journal of medical economics, 17(6), 377-383.
  39. Van Bemmel, J.H. and Musen, M.A. (1997). Handbook of Medical Informatics. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
  40. Van Ooteghem, J., Ackaert, A., Verbrugge, S., Colle, D., Pickavet, M., and Demeester, P. (2012). Economic viability of eCare solutions. In Electronic Healthcare (pp. 159-166). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  41. Wilson, E. V., and Lankton, N. K. (2004). Interdisciplinary Research and Publication Opportunites in Information Systems and Health Care. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 14(1), 51.
  42. Yusof, M. M., Paul, R. J., and Stergioulas, L. K. (2006). Towards a framework for health information systems evaluation. In System Sciences, HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 5, pp. 95a-95a). IEEE.
  43. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. Simon and ssSchuster.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Carroll N., Travers M. and Richardson I. (2016). Evaluating Multiple Perspectives of a Connected Health Ecosystem . In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies - Volume 5: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2016) ISBN 978-989-758-170-0, pages 17-27. DOI: 10.5220/0005623300170027

in Bibtex Style

author={Noel Carroll and Marie Travers and Ita Richardson},
title={Evaluating Multiple Perspectives of a Connected Health Ecosystem},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies - Volume 5: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2016)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies - Volume 5: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2016)
TI - Evaluating Multiple Perspectives of a Connected Health Ecosystem
SN - 978-989-758-170-0
AU - Carroll N.
AU - Travers M.
AU - Richardson I.
PY - 2016
SP - 17
EP - 27
DO - 10.5220/0005623300170027