Helminski Danielle, Sussman Jeremy B, Pfeiffer Paul N, Kokaly Alex N, Ranusch Allison, Renji Anjana Deep, Damschroder Laura J, Landis-Lewis Zach, Kurlander Jacob E
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, NCRC Building 14, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States, 1 734 430 5359.
Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
JMIR Med Inform. 2024 Dec 10;12:e59828. doi: 10.2196/59828.
Dashboards have become ubiquitous in health care settings, but to achieve their goals, they must be developed, implemented, and evaluated using methods that help ensure they meet the needs of end users and are suited to the barriers and facilitators of the local context.
This scoping review aimed to explore published literature on health care dashboards to characterize the methods used to identify factors affecting uptake, strategies used to increase dashboard uptake, and evaluation methods, as well as dashboard characteristics and context.
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through July 2020. Studies were included if they described the development or evaluation of a health care dashboard with publication from 2018-2020. Clinical setting, purpose (categorized as clinical, administrative, or both), end user, design characteristics, methods used to identify factors affecting uptake, strategies to increase uptake, and evaluation methods were extracted.
From 116 publications, we extracted data for 118 dashboards. Inpatient (45/118, 38.1%) and outpatient (42/118, 35.6%) settings were most common. Most dashboards had ≥2 stated purposes (84/118, 71.2%); of these, 54 of 118 (45.8%) were administrative, 43 of 118 (36.4%) were clinical, and 20 of 118 (16.9%) had both purposes. Most dashboards included frontline clinical staff as end users (97/118, 82.2%). To identify factors affecting dashboard uptake, half involved end users in the design process (59/118, 50%); fewer described formative usability testing (26/118, 22%) or use of any theory or framework to guide development, implementation, or evaluation (24/118, 20.3%). The most common strategies used to increase uptake included education (60/118, 50.8%); audit and feedback (59/118, 50%); and advisory boards (54/118, 45.8%). Evaluations of dashboards (84/118, 71.2%) were mostly quantitative (60/118, 50.8%), with fewer using only qualitative methods (6/118, 5.1%) or a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods (18/118, 15.2%).
Most dashboards forego steps during development to ensure they suit the needs of end users and the clinical context; qualitative evaluation-which can provide insight into ways to improve dashboard effectiveness-is uncommon. Education and audit and feedback are frequently used to increase uptake. These findings illustrate the need for promulgation of best practices in dashboard development and will be useful to dashboard planners.
仪表板在医疗环境中已无处不在，但要实现其目标，必须采用有助于确保满足最终用户需求且适合当地环境中的障碍和促进因素的方法来进行开发、实施和评估。
本综述旨在探索已发表的关于医疗仪表板的文献，以描述用于识别影响采用率的因素的方法、用于提高仪表板采用率的策略、评估方法以及仪表板特征和环境。
从创刊至2020年7月对MEDLINE、Embase、科学引文索引和考克兰图书馆进行检索。如果研究描述了2018 - 2020年发表的医疗仪表板的开发或评估，则纳入研究。提取临床环境、目的（分为临床、行政或两者兼具）、最终用户、设计特征、用于识别影响采用率的因素的方法、提高采用率的策略以及评估方法。
从116篇出版物中，我们提取了118个仪表板的数据。住院环境（45/118，38.1%）和门诊环境（42/118，35.6%）最为常见。大多数仪表板有≥2个既定目的（84/118，71.2%）；其中，118个中的54个（45.8%）是行政目的，118个中的43个（36.4%）是临床目的，118个中的20个（16.9%）兼具两种目的。大多数仪表板将一线临床工作人员作为最终用户（97/118，82.2%）。为识别影响仪表板采用率的因素，一半的研究在设计过程中让最终用户参与（59/118，50%）；较少研究描述了形成性可用性测试（26/118，22%）或使用任何理论或框架来指导开发、实施或评估（24/118，20.3%）。用于提高采用率的最常见策略包括教育（60/118，50.8%）；审核与反馈（59/118，50%）；以及咨询委员会（54/118，45.8%）。对仪表板的评估（84/118，71.2%）大多是定量的（60/118，50.8%），较少仅使用定性方法（6/118，5.1%）或定量与定性方法结合（18/118，15.2%）。
大多数仪表板在开发过程中忽略了一些步骤，以确保它们适合最终用户的需求和临床环境；定性评估——这可以提供有关提高仪表板有效性方法的见解——并不常见。教育以及审核与反馈经常被用于提高采用率。这些发现表明需要推广仪表板开发的最佳实践，并且对仪表板规划者将是有用的。
