Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Jun 18;11(2):e20.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.1058.

Measuring the impact of a moving target: towards a dynamic framework for evaluating collaborative adaptive interactive technologies

Affiliations
Review

Measuring the impact of a moving target: towards a dynamic framework for evaluating collaborative adaptive interactive technologies

Laura O'Grady et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Website evaluation is a key issue for researchers, organizations, and others responsible for designing, maintaining, endorsing, approving, and/or assessing the use and impact of interventions designed to influence health and health services. Traditionally, these evaluations have included elements such as content credibility, interface usability, and overall design aesthetics. With the emergence of collaborative, adaptive, and interactive ("Web 2.0") technologies such as wikis and other forms of social networking applications, these metrics may no longer be sufficient to adequately assess the quality, use or impact of a health website. Collaborative, adaptive, interactive applications support different ways for people to interact with health information on the Web, including the potential for increased user participation in the design, creation, and maintenance of such sites.

Objective: We propose a framework that addresses how to evaluate collaborative, adaptive, and interactive applications.

Methods: In this paper, we conducted a comprehensive review of a variety of databases using terminology related to this area.

Results: We present a review of evaluation frameworks and also propose a framework that incorporates collaborative, adaptive, and interactive technologies, grounded in evaluation theory.

Conclusion: This framework can be applied by researchers who wish to compare Web-based interventions, non-profit organizations, and clinical groups who aim to provide health information and support about a particular health concern via the Web, and decisions about funding grants by agencies interested in the role of social networks and collaborative, adaptive, and interactive technologies technologies to improve health and the health system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

ARJ owns Foresight Links Corporation, a consultancy company which works in the area of systematic reviews and evaluation, which may indirectly benefit from publication of this article.

References

    1. Dansky Kathryn H, Thompson Debbe, Sanner Tammy. A framework for evaluating eHealth research. Eval Program Plann. 2006 Nov;29(4):397–404. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.009.S0149-7189(06)00086-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wyatt J. Commentary: measuring quality and impact of the World Wide Web. BMJ. 1997;314(7098):1879–81. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eng T R, Gustafson D H, Henderson J, Jimison H, Patrick K. Introduction to evaluation of interactive health communication applications. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. Am J Prev Med. 1999 Jan;16(1):10–5. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00107-X.S074937979800107X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmidt A. Implicit human computer interaction through context. Pers Ubiq Comput. 2000;4(2-3):191–199.
    1. Witteman H, O’Grady L. eHealth in the Era of Web 2.0. Working Papers for Virtually Informed: The Internet as (New) Health Information Source, Final Conference of the Project, Virtually Informed: The Internet in the Medical Field. Vienna, Austria: 2008. Jan, [2009 May 21]. pp. 13–40.5emv3F4fp http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/documents/737266552.pdf.

LinkOut - more resources