Information and Knowledge Management using ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Maryati Mohd Yusof
The search for articles that addressed issues pertinent to HIS evaluation was conducted using a
number of databases ranging from medical, informatics and engineering field. The search terms were
individualized for each database and included terms for: (health or medical) informatics, system,
computer based, evaluation and assessment. In this systematic review, evaluation study is defined as
a methodical, empirical assessment of health information system in clinical settings. The type of study
design selected is case study as it provides understanding and insight into the research question.
Thus, other study designs, such as experiment and survey are not included in this systematic review.
HIS stands for any computer based information systems that involves human interaction used in
healthcare settings. All computer or knowledge based training and education systems for healthcare
professional are excluded in the review, as they are not directly related to clinical care (or clinical use
of technology). Searches were limited to human subjects and articles published in English, between
1985 and 2005, and were completed from January to February 2006. The studies were searched
both electronically and manually in order to cover a comprehensive range of literature. The selection
of studies involves a multi-stage process] (See Figure 3).
Figure 3: Methods of study selection
A number of steps were taken to ensure the quality of both research strategies. For the case study,
two tests, namely construct validity and reliability were done to establish the quality of the empirical
research. In addition, potential bias was overcome by conducting a reliability test and data
triangulation. Focusing on the systematic review, a checklist of the assessment of qualitative research
was used to assess all selected empirical papers by judging their serious flaw.
3.2 Application of framework
The HOT-fit framework was used as a guideline in the evaluation of the FIS and CCIS. Based on the
HOT-fit framework, four techniques were used to analyse the results: coding, analytic memos (such
as reflection notes, displays, and concept maps), and contextual and narrative analysis (Miles and
Huberman, 1994; Kaplan and Maxwell, 1994). The field notes were fully transcribed on marginmarked
paper. The margins were used to note any reflections, themes relevant to HOT-fit and
statements which were unclear or needed to be confirmed with the participants. The data were coded
and categorised under similar themes or concepts of the HOT-fit framework and refined throughout a
series of analyses. These codes correspond to each factor, dimensions and measures described in
the HOT-fit framework (See Figure 1). Further, texts under the same category were compared to
identify variations and nuances in meanings. Categories were compared to discover connections
between themes. Concept maps were drawn to understand the relationship between a number of
concepts involved in the evaluation of the FIS.
362