Let's consider Theory and Health

Informatics. What is theory anyway?

It's a collection of thoughts that represent reality.
We're trying to explain something, but we're not exactly sure how it works or
what will happen. Thus, theory is a guess, maybe an obvious
guess or a best guess but a guess nonetheless.
We adopt theories and use them as we do life and they shape our view of reality.
We can contrast theories to laws. Laws such as the law of gravity are
truths, not theories. In science we don't have all that many
laws. We have mostly theories.
So we're here today in search of a way of understanding health informatics.
We can imagine several concepts that may relate to health informatics theory.
Concepts like communication, change, systems and especially information.
And sure enough, folks have been out there arranging concepts like these into
diagrams with boxes and arrows, trying to describe health information theory.
Let's take a look at a few examples. In healthcare, we borrow from computer
science for our information theory building blocks.
In 1986, Robert Blum began publishing about clinical information systems theory
relating concepts of data, information and knowledge.
Blum defined data saying that these are individual items made available to the
analysts. He said information was a set of data
with some interpretation or value added. He said knowledge is a set of rules,
formula or heuristics used to create information form data and information.
In 1989, Graves and Corcoran Perry arranged these concepts into a diagram
that depicts a one directional horizontal flow from data to information to
knowledge. And called it the Conceptual Framework
for the Study of Nursing Informatics. Nelson and Joos advanced the same ideas
by arranging them in a diagonal trajectory.
The upward direction of the trajectory depicts increasing complexity of these
concepts. They also added the notion of wisdom.
A new concept that takes knowledge to the next step.
What do you think about the overlapping circles?
Do they mean the same thing as the arrows in the Graves, Corker and Perry model?
Or does it mean that there is no discreet dividing line between some or all of
these concepts? This theory was published in a Health
Care Informatics book in 2002. Martin LaVentura at the Minnesota
Department of Health has further adapted these same concepts into a more complex
model for Public Health Informatics. We see the familiar data information,
knowledge and wisdom concepts. All represented on the diagonal
trajectory upwards. On this model the upward trajectory
corresponds to the level of value. The arrow behind the concepts is back and
we have two new concepts, practice and healthier communities.
The evolution of these diagrams show that we are getting more and more
sophisticated in our thinking about health informatics.
Clearly this model is outcomes-focused. We aren't talking about processing data
for the sake of gaining information or new knowledge or even wisdom.
In this model we want to see improvement in public health practice, which we
believe, is linked to the public's health.