Es mostren els missatges amb l'etiqueta de comentaris AUCOOP. Mostrar tots els missatges

Títol: Sistemes autònoms de baix cost de suport a projectes educatius i de salut. Data de lectura: 12/07/2017. Estudiant: Sánchez Fuster, Albert
Títol: Economía Social para la sostenibilidad: una visión desde las TIC. Data de lectura: 10/07/2017 Estudiant: Landívar Cordero, Joaquín Mateo
Títol: Plataforma web per a la gestió de projectes a Bilwi (Nicaragua) Data de lectura: 25/05/2017 Estudiant: Echevarria Garuz, Laura
Títol: Suport TIC en centres de salut en zones rurals i aïllades. Data de lectura: 25/05/2017. Estudiant: Bonet Armengol, Arnau
Títol: Hypoglycemia ergonomic detection. Data de lectura: 23/01/2017 Estudiant: López Esquembri, Javier
Títol: Estudio de Implementación de las TIC para una Movilidad Sostenible de la Ciudad de Cuenca – Ecuador Data de lectura: 13/10/2016 Estudiant: Bernal Cedillo, Carlos Andrés
Títol: Educació mitjançant les TIC a zones rurals Data de lectura: 13/07/2016 Estudiant: Muxella Jumilla, Gisela
Títol: Diseño e implementación de una aplicación Android para comunicaciones inmediatas de voz en entornos de emergencias Data de lectura: 04/07/2016 Estudiant: Ibañez Galera, Judith
Títol: Desenvolupament d'una xarxa Mesh per donar cobertura de serveis IP en entorns sense infraestructura. Data de lectura: 16/06/2016 Estudiant: Alemany Viader, Míriam
Títol: Propuesta y aplicación de un modelo de análisis y evaluación sobre programas de telemedicina en países en desarrollo: el caso del Programa Salud 2.0 en Camerún. Data de lectura: 04/02/2015. Estudiant: Berdun, Jesús.
Títol: Wireless communication system design for refugee camps and conflicto áreas. Data de lectura: 22/07/2014. Estudiant: Antó Espelta, Ismael
Títol: Soluciones TIC para la creación de sistemas de seguimiento de historiales clínicos en campos de refugiados. Data de lectura: 22/07/2014 Estudiant: Baeza Rojo, Irene
Títol: Situación e Impacto de los Residuos de Aparatos Eléctricos y Electrónicos (RAEE). Caso de Estudio: los Ordenadores. Estudiant: Permanyer Martinez, Olga

Participació en projectes CCD

• Títol del projecte: Implementació d'una xarxa entre les escoles de Sawla
Dades de la contrapart: NASCO ICT
País de realització: Ghana
• Títol del projecte: Seminari sobre xarxes Mesh comunitària sense fils i desplegament amb fi de educació i recerca a la Universitat Mekele Institute of Technology
Dades de la contrapart: MIT, Mekele Institute of Technology
País de realització: Etiòpia
• Títol del projecte: Ampliació de la xarxa Wifi a l'escola i formació dels professors en les eines educatives TIC i manteniment del recursos.
Altres entitats que hi participen: FES Educació Solidària
País de realització: Senegal (Àfrica de l'Oest)
• Títol del projecte: Projecte per al desenvolupament de l'Escola Superior Tècnica de la Universitat Pedagògica de Moçambic
Dades de la contrapart: Escola Tècnica Superior de la “Universidade Pedagógica”
Altres entitats que hi participen: Arquitectos Sin Fronteras (ASF) - Mozambique
País de realització: Moçambic (Àfrica del Sud)
• Títol del projecte: Instal·lació d'un programari per millorar el seguiment mèdic dels pacients i digitalitzar els historials, així com formació per al seu ús.
Dades de la contrapart: ADA EAST DISTRICT HOSPITAL
Altres entitats que hi participen: ONG Akoma
País de realització: Ghana (Àfrica de l'Oest)
• Títol del projecte: Capacitacions a Northern Region
Dades de la contrapart: Nasco ICT
País de realització: Ghana (Àfrica de l'Oest)
• Títol del projecte: Desplegament d’una xarxa comunitària sense fils i muntatge d’un servidor Viquipèdia offline a la Meki Catholic School
Dades de la contrapart: Living Meki-PROYDE
País de realització: Etiòpia (Àfrica de l'Est)
• Títol del projecte: Suport i assessorament acadèmic i de recerca a la Universitat Addis Ababa Science & Technology University (AASTU).
Dades de la contrapart: Addis Ababa Science & Technology University (AASTU)
País de realització: Etiòpia (Àfrica de l'Est)
• Títol del projecte: Equipament TIC a la nova maternitat de Woldia i l'escola de Tigle Frie
Dades de la contrapart: IPI-COOP
País de realització: Etiòpia
• Títol del projecte: Implantació, millora i manteniment dels recursos TIC educatius a Sawla i Tuna.
Dades de la contrapart: NASCO-ICT
País de realització: GHANA
• Títol del projecte: Instal·lació d'equipament de suport TIC a la pediatria de Meki (CMAM) i identificació de necessitats a l'hospital de Gambo.
Dades de la contrapart: Alegría sin Fronteras
País de realització: ETIÒPIA
• Títol del projecte: Kill the Silent Killer. Lluita contra la hipertensió a l’Àfrica rural
Dades de la contrapart: Gambo General Rural Hospital
País de realització: ETIÒPIA
• Títol del projecte: Suport TIC a Camoapa i Bilwi i implementació de plataformes web per a la gestió de projectes
Dades de la contrapart: Ajuntament de Bilwi (Puerto Cabezas), Amigos de Vilafranca
País de realització: NICARAGUA

Blog Projecte STEM-UP Senegal Estiu 2017

El projecte STEM UP! neix amb la voluntat d’adaptar material docent (pràctiques de baix cost realitzables a l’aula, vídeos i material imprès) per iniciar un procés de millora en la didàctica de les disciplines STEM (ciència, tecnologia, enginyeria i matemàtiques).

https://stemupblog.wordpress.com/

The independent regulator of health and social care in England

http://www.cqc.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-do-our-job/fundamental-standards

DHIS2 Mobile

https://www.dhis2.org/mobile

Browser based mobile client

In contexts where mobile data coverage is good and health workers already have phones, using the mobile browser DHIS2 interface may be an important complement to other clients. Cheap, low end mobile phone support browser-based data entry through a simple mobile interface optimized for small screen sizes. You may also consider using a more advanced user interface customized for Android smart phones. The Android smart phone interface also supports offline data entry using HTML5.

The mobile browser interfaces are also great complements for users who ordinarily use the web based data entry, but for some reason need to enter data while on the move. Because the browser is available in many existing handsets and require little extra setup, we typically recommend including basic training in how to access the system using the mobile browser when training staff at any level. Despite the large handset support for browser-based solutions, many projects still prefer limiting the handset base to a well-tested and controlled group of phones, to limit the support and training costs. The costs for the phones is often only a very small part of the rollout of the system, and spending a bit more on phones may give many advantages to future enhancements and evolution of the service.

Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail?

https://www.ictworks.org/2015/12/09/why-do-evaluations-of-ehealth-programs-fail/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

Much has been written about why electronic health (eHealth) initiatives fail. Less attention has been paid to why evaluations of such initiatives fail to deliver the insights expected of them. PLoS Medicine has published three papers offering a “robust” and “scientific” approach to eHealth evaluation.

One recommended systematically addressing each part of a “chain of reasoning”, at the centre of which was the program’s goals. Another proposed a quasi-experimental step-wedge design, in which late adopters of eHealth innovations serve as controls for early adopters. Interestingly, the authors of the empirical study flagged by these authors as an exemplary illustration of the step-wedge design subsequently abandoned it in favour of a largely qualitative case study because they found it impossible to establish anything approaching a controlled experiment in the study’s complex, dynamic, and heavily politicised context.

The approach to evaluation presented in the previous PLoS Medicine series rests on a set of assumptions that philosophers of science call “positivist”: that there is an external reality that can be objectively measured; that phenomena such as “project goals”, “outcomes”, and “formative feedback” can be precisely and unambiguously defined; that facts and values are clearly distinguishable; and that generalisable statements about the relationship between input and output variables are possible.

Alternative approaches to eHealth evaluation are based on very different philosophical assumptions. For example,

“interpretivist” approaches assume a socially constructed reality (i.e., people perceive issues in different ways and assign different values and significance to facts)—hence, reality is never objectively or unproblematically knowable—and that the identity and values of the researcher are inevitably implicated in the research process.
“critical” approaches assume that critical questioning can generate insights about power relationships and interests and that one purpose of evaluation is to ask such questions on behalf of less powerful and potentially vulnerable groups (such as patients).

ehealth-fail

10 Alternative Guiding Principles for eHealth Evaluation

Lilford et al. identify four “tricky questions” in eHealth evaluation (qualitative or quantitative?; patient or system?; formative or summative?; internal or external?) and resolve these by recommending mixed-method, patient-and-system studies in which internal evaluations (undertaken by practitioners and policymakers) are formative and external ones (undertaken by “impartial” researchers) are summative. In our view, the tricky questions are more philosophical and political than methodological and procedural.

We offer below an alternative (and at this stage, provisional) set of principles, initially developed to guide our evaluation of the SCR program, which we invite others to critique, test, and refine. These principles are deliberately presented in a somewhat abstracted and generalised way, since they will need to be applied flexibly with attention to the particularities and contingencies of different contexts and settings. Each principle will be more or less relevant to a particular project, and their relative importance will differ in different evaluations.

Think about your own role in the evaluation. Try to strike a balance between critical distance on the one hand and immersion and engagement on the other. Ask questions such as What am I investigating—and on whose behalf? How do I balance my obligations to the various institutions and individuals involved? Who owns the data I collect?

Put in place a governance process (including a broad-based advisory group with an independent chair) that formally recognises that there are multiple stakeholders and that power is unevenly distributed between them. Map out everyone’s expectations of the program and the evaluation. Be clear that simply because a sponsor pays for an evaluation it does not have special claim on its services or exemption from its focus.

Provide the interpersonal and analytic space for effective dialogue (e.g., by offering to feed back anonymised data from one group of stakeholders to another). Conversation and debate is not simply a means to an end, it can be an end in itself. Learning happens more through the processes of evaluation than from the final product of an evaluation report.

Take an emergent approach. An evaluation cannot be designed at the outset and pursued relentlessly to its conclusions; it must grow and adapt in response to findings and practical issues which arise in fieldwork. Build theory from emerging data, not the other way round (for example, instead of seeking to test a predefined “causal chain of reasoning”, explore such links by observing social practices).

Consider the dynamic macro-level context (economic, political, demographic, technological) in which the eHealth innovation is being introduced. Your stakeholder map and challenges of putting together your advisory group should form part of this dataset.

Consider the different meso-level contexts (e.g., organisations, professional groups, networks), how action plays out in these settings (e.g., in terms of culture, strategic decisions, expectations of staff, incentives, rewards) and how this changes over time. Include reflections on the research process (e.g., gaining access) in this dataset.

Consider the individuals (e.g., clinicians, managers, service users) through whom the eHealth innovation(s) will be adopted, deployed, and used. Explore their backgrounds, identities and capabilities; what the technology means to them and what they think will happen if and when they use it.

Consider the eHealth technologies, the expectations and constraints inscribed in them (e.g., access controls, decision models) and how they “work” or not in particular conditions of use. Expose conflicts and ambiguities (e.g., between professional codes of practice and the behaviours expected by technologies).

Use narrative as an analytic tool and to synthesise findings. Analyse a sample of small-scale incidents in detail to unpack the complex ways in which macro- and meso-level influences impact on technology use at the front line. When writing up the case study, the story form will allow you to engage with the messiness and unpredictability of the program; make sense of complex interlocking events; treat conflicting findings (e.g., between the accounts of top management and staff) as higher-order data; and open up space for further interpretation and deliberation.

Consider critical events in relation to the evaluation itself. Document systematically stakeholders’ efforts to re-draw the boundaries of the evaluation, influence the methods, contest the findings, amend the language, modify the conclusions, and delay or suppress publication.

Adapted from Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles by Trisha Greenhalgh and Jill Russell

AUCOOP Reunió 4 octubre 2017

Projectes realitzats a l'estiu 2017:

Ghana: Nil i Janna. Contrapart Nasco
Ethiopia: Estudiants enginyeria Física. Contrapart IPI-cooperació
Ethiopia: Arnau, Albert, contrapart Hospital Pediatric de Meki
Ethiopia: Adria'ns Juandiego, Quim, PereRiu. BloodPressure UnderPressure. Contrapart Hospital Gambo
Nepal
Nicaragua

Treball de les diferents comissions: