Page - 216 - in Applied Interdisciplinary Theory in Health Informatics - Knowledge Base for Practitioners

8. Conclusion We thank our readers for joining us on this journey into the theoretical side of health informatics. We have learned much and enjoyed developing the book. We hope you find the book useful and welcome suggestions for a more extensive second edition. Finally, we hope that you are now part of the health informatics community that agrees with Lewin that: “there is nothing more practical than a good theory” [37]. Teaching questions for reflection 1. In your area of health informatics practice, what would you identify as the most useful interdisciplinary theories in this textbook? 2. What additional theories can you propose for a future edition of the textbook? 3. How would you evaluate the scientific maturity of health informatics, based on its current approach to theory? 4. What do you feel are the priorities for theoretical topics in health informatics that need further research? 5. What would criteria for health informatics theory selection look like? References [1] The history of the germ theory, British Medical Journal 1 (1888), 312-313. [2] E. Ammenwerth, J. Brender, P. Nykanen, H.U. Prokosch, M. Rigby, and J. Talmon, Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems. Reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck, Int J Med Inform 73 (2004), 479-491. [3] J.S. Ash, D.F. Sittig, R.H. Dykstra, K. Guappone, J.D. Carpenter, and V. Seshadri, Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry, Int J Med Inform76 Suppl 1 (2007), S21-27. [4] M. Berg, Medical work and the computer-based patient record: a sociological perspective, Methods Inf Med 37 (1998), 294-301. [5] M.C. Beuscart-Zephir, P. Elkin, S. Pelayo, and R. Beuscart, The human factors engineering approach to biomedical informatics projects: state of the art, results, benefits and challenges, Yearb Med Inform (2007), 109-127. [6] E. Billo and N. Hiemstra, Mediating messiness: expanding ideas of flexibility, reflexivity, and embodiment in fieldwork, Gender, Place & Culture 20 (2013), 313-328. [7] S.A. Birken, B.J. Powell, C.M. Shea, E.R. Haines, M. Alexis Kirk, J. Leeman, C. Rohweder, L. Damschroder, and J. Presseau, Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey, Implementation Science 12 (2017), 124. [8] M. Blois, Information and Medicine: Nature of Medical Descriptions, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 1984. [9] M.S. Blois, Clinical judgment and computers, N Engl J Med303 (1980), 192-197. [10] J. Brender, J. Talmon, N. de Keizer, P. Nykanen, M. Rigby, and E. Ammenwerth, STARE-HI -Statement on Reporting of Evaluation Studies in Health Informatics: explanation and elaboration, Appl Clin Inform 4 (2013), 331-358. [11] P.F. Brennan, Standing in the shadows of theory, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15 (2008), 263-264. [12] A. Burgun, Desiderata for domain reference ontologies in biomedicine, J Biomed Inform 39 (2006), 307- 313. [13] J.J. Bylebyl, The growth of Harvey's "de motu cordis", Bulletin of the History of Medicine47 (1973), 427- 470. [14] D.A. Chambers, W.G. Feero, and M.J. Khoury, Convergence of Implementation Science, Precision Medicine, and the Learning Health Care System: A New Model for Biomedical Research, JAMA 315 (2016), 1941-1942. P.J.Scott etal. /ReflectingandLooking to theFuture216