Suppr超能文献

电子健康信息质量框架的系统评价和定性综合研究方案。

Protocol for a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of information quality frameworks in eHealth.

机构信息

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Department of Hospital Services, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 5;9(3):e024722. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024722.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Electronic health (eHealth) applications have become a very large repository of health information which informs critical decisions relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of patients. Poor information quality (IQ) within eHealth may compromise patient safety. Evaluation of IQ in eHealth is therefore necessary to promote patient safety. An IQ framework specifies what aspects of information to assess and how to conduct the assessment. This systematic review aims to identify dimensions within existing IQ frameworks in eHealth and develop a new IQ framework for the assessment of eHealth.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

We will search Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO (American Psychological Association), Global Health, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Health Management Information Consortium and reference lists of relevant publications for articles published in English until November 2018. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Two reviewers will independently extract data in each eligible study using a prepiloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. Thematic synthesis will be employed to define IQ dimensions and develop a new IQ framework for eHealth.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The result of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018097142.

摘要

简介

电子健康(eHealth)应用程序已经成为一个非常庞大的健康信息库,为与患者诊断、治疗和预后相关的关键决策提供信息。eHealth 中的信息质量(IQ)差可能会危及患者安全。因此,评估 eHealth 中的 IQ 对于促进患者安全是必要的。IQ 框架指定了要评估信息的哪些方面以及如何进行评估。本系统评价旨在确定 eHealth 中现有 IQ 框架内的维度,并为 eHealth 的评估开发一个新的 IQ 框架。

方法与分析

我们将在截止到 2018 年 11 月的英语出版物中,在 Embase、Medline、PubMed、Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature、Maternity and Infant Care、PsycINFO(美国心理协会)、Global Health、Scopus、ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global、Health Management Information Consortium 以及相关出版物的参考文献中搜索文章。根据预先确定的入选标准,两名独立评审员将对研究进行选择。两名评审员将使用预编程的 Microsoft Excel 数据提取表格,在每项合格研究中独立提取数据。将采用主题综合法来定义 IQ 维度并为 eHealth 开发一个新的 IQ 框架。

伦理与传播

由于本系统评价不收集原始数据,因此不需要伦理批准。审查结果将通过发表在学术期刊和科学会议上进行传播。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42018097142。

相似文献

2
Information Quality Frameworks for Digital Health Technologies: Systematic Review.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 17;23(5):e23479. doi: 10.2196/23479.
7
Home-Based Pediatric Palliative Care and Electronic Health: Systematic Mixed Methods Review.
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 28;22(2):e16248. doi: 10.2196/16248.

引用本文的文献

1
2
The Development and Progress of Health Information Technology in Iran.
Health Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 23;8(7):e71106. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.71106. eCollection 2025 Jul.
4
The Venus score for the assessment of the quality and trustworthiness of biomedical datasets.
BioData Min. 2025 Jan 9;18(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s13040-024-00412-x.
5
Interplay between leadership and patient safety in dentistry: a dental hospital-based cross-sectional study.
BMJ Open Qual. 2024 May 7;13(Suppl 2):e002376. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002376.
7
Digital technologies in primary care: Implications for patient care and future research.
Eur J Gen Pract. 2022 Dec;28(1):203-208. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2022.2052041.
10
Personalized Health Care and Public Health in the Digital Age.
Front Digit Health. 2021 Mar 30;3:595704. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2021.595704. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
The impact of health information technology on patient safety.
Saudi Med J. 2017 Dec;38(12):1173-1180. doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.12.20631.
2
The impact of electronic records on patient safety: a qualitative study.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Jun 4;16:62. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0299-y.
3
Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?
Health Info Libr J. 2015 Sep;32(3):220-35. doi: 10.1111/hir.12108. Epub 2015 Jun 11.
4
Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3422.
5
Clinical safety of England's national programme for IT: a retrospective analysis of all reported safety events 2005 to 2011.
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Mar;84(3):198-206. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.12.003. Epub 2015 Jan 4.
8
A review of data quality assessment methods for public health information systems.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 May 14;11(5):5170-207. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110505170.
9
"Best fit" framework synthesis: refining the method.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 13;13:37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验