This study is based on experiences from editors, reviewers, authors of systematic reviews and readers of the scientific literature. The applicability of the principles has not been evaluated in real practice. Only when authors start to use these principles for reporting, shortcomings in the principles will emerge.

No abstract

Introduction: A mandatory multidisciplinary plan for individual care, the 'Individual care Plan', was introduced by law in Norway in 2001. The regulation was established to meet the need for improved efficiency and quality of health and social services, and to increase patient involvement. The plan was intended for patients with long-term and complex needs for coordinated care. The aim of this study was to elaborate on knowledge of such planning processes in Norwegian municipalities.

No abstract

SummaryBackground: Improving the quality of reporting of evaluation studies in health informatics is an important requirement towards the vision of evidence-based health informatics. The STARE-HIStatement on Reporting of Evaluation Studies in health informatics, published in 2009, provides guidelines on the elements to be contained in an evaluation study report. Objectives: To elaborate on and provide a rationale for the principles of STARE-HI and to guide authors and readers of evaluation studies in health informatics by providing explanatory examples of reporting. Methods: A group of methodologists, researchers and editors prepared the present elaboration of the STARE-HI statement and selected examples from the literature. Results: The 35 STARE-HI items to be addressed in evaluation papers describing health informatics interventions are discussed one by one and each is extended with examples and elaborations. Conclusion: The STARE-HI statement and this elaboration document should be helpful resources to improve reporting of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation studies. Evaluation manuscripts adhering to the principles will enable readers of such papers to better place the studies in a proper context and judge their validity and generalizability, and thus in turn optimize the exploitation of the evidence contained therein. Limitations: This paper is based on experiences of a group of editors, reviewers, authors of systematic reviews and readers of the scientific literature. The applicability of the details of these principles has to evolve as a function of their use in practice.