IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/thssxx/v11y2022i1p59-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“What’s the evidence?”—Towards more empirical evaluations of the impact of OR interventions in healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Guillaume Lamé
  • Sonya Crowe
  • Matthew Barclay

Abstract

Despite an increasing number of papers reporting applications of operational research (OR) to problems in healthcare, there remains little empirical evidence of OR improving healthcare delivery in practice. Without such evidence it is harder both to justify the usefulness of OR to a healthcare audience and to learn and continuously improve our approaches. To progress, we need to build the evidence-base on whether and how OR improves healthcare delivery through careful empirical evaluation. This position paper reviews evaluation standards in healthcare improvement research and dispels some common myths about evaluation. It highlights the current lack of robust evaluation of healthcare OR and makes the case for addressing this. It then proposes possible ways for building better empirical evaluations of OR interventions in healthcare.

Suggested Citation

  • Guillaume Lamé & Sonya Crowe & Matthew Barclay, 2022. "“What’s the evidence?”—Towards more empirical evaluations of the impact of OR interventions in healthcare," Health Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 59-67, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:thssxx:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:59-67
    DOI: 10.1080/20476965.2020.1857663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/20476965.2020.1857663
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/20476965.2020.1857663?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:thssxx:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:59-67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/thss .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.