Stahlman Gretchen, Yanovitzky Itzhak, Kim Miriam
School of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.
School of Communication & Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2025 May 21;27:e65283. doi: 10.2196/65283.
Data dashboards can be a powerful tool for ensuring access for public health decision makers to timely, relevant, and credible data. As their appeal and reach become ubiquitous, it is important to consider how they may be best integrated with public health data systems and the decision-making routines of users.
This scoping review describes and analyzes the current state of knowledge regarding the design, application, and actionability of US national public health data dashboards to identify critical theoretical and empirical gaps in the literature and clarify definitions and operationalization of actionability as a critical property of dashboards.
The review follows PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search was conducted for refereed journal articles, conference proceedings, and reports that describe the design, implementation, or evaluation of US national public health dashboards published between 2000 and 2023, using a validated search query across relevant databases (CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources. Of 2544 documents retrieved, 89 (3.5%) met all inclusion criteria. An iterative process of testing and improving intercoder reliability was implemented to extract data.
The dashboards reviewed (N=89) target a broad range of public health topics but are primarily designed for epidemiological surveillance and monitoring (n=51, 57% of dashboards) and probing health disparities and social determinants of health (n=27, 30%). Thus, they are limited in their potential to guide users' policy and practice decisions. Nearly all dashboards are created, hosted, and funded by institutional entities, such as government agencies and universities, that hold influence over public health agendas and priorities. Intended users are primarily public health professionals (n=34, 38%), policy makers (n=30, 34%), and researchers or practitioners (n=28, 32%), but it is unclear whether the dashboards are tailored to users' data capacities or needs, although 30% of articles reference user-centered design. Usability indicators commonly referenced include website analytics (n=22, 25%), expert evaluation (n=19, 21%), and users' impact stories (n=14, 16%), but only 30% (n=26) of all articles report usability assessment. Usefulness is frequently inferred from presumed relevance to decision makers (n=17, 19%), anecdotal stakeholder feedback (n=16, 18%), and user engagement metrics (n=14, 16%) rather than via rigorous testing. Only 47% (n=42) of dashboards were still accessible or active at the time of review.
The findings reveal fragmentation and a lack of scientific rigor in current knowledge regarding the design, implementation, and utility of public health dashboards. Coherent theoretical accounts and direct empirical tests that link usability, usefulness, and use of these tools to users' decisions and actions are critically missing. A more complete explication and operationalization of actionability in this context has significant potential to fill this gap and advance future scholarship and practice.
数据仪表盘可以成为确保公共卫生决策者获取及时、相关且可信数据的有力工具。随着其吸引力和影响力变得无处不在，考虑如何将它们与公共卫生数据系统以及用户的决策流程进行最佳整合变得很重要。
本范围综述描述并分析了关于美国国家公共卫生数据仪表盘的设计、应用和可操作性的当前知识状态，以识别文献中关键的理论和实证差距，并阐明可操作性作为仪表盘关键属性的定义和实施方法。
该综述遵循PRISMA-ScR（系统评价和Meta分析扩展的首选报告项目，用于范围综述）指南。使用经过验证的搜索查询在相关数据库（CINAHL、PubMed、MEDLINE和科学网）和灰色文献来源中搜索2000年至2023年期间发表的描述美国国家公共卫生仪表盘的设计、实施或评估的同行评审期刊文章、会议论文和报告。在检索到的2544篇文献中，89篇（3.5%）符合所有纳入标准。实施了一个测试和提高编码员间可靠性的迭代过程来提取数据。
所审查的仪表盘（N = 89）针对广泛的公共卫生主题，但主要设计用于流行病学监测（n = 51，占仪表盘的57%）以及探究健康差异和健康的社会决定因素（n = 27，30%）。因此，它们在指导用户的政策和实践决策方面的潜力有限。几乎所有仪表盘都是由对公共卫生议程和优先事项有影响力的机构实体创建、托管和资助的，如政府机构和大学。目标用户主要是公共卫生专业人员（n = 34，38%）、政策制定者（n = 30，34%）以及研究人员或从业者（n = 28，32%），但尚不清楚仪表盘是否根据用户的数据能力或需求进行了定制化，尽管30%的文章提到了以用户为中心的设计。常用的可用性指标包括网站分析（n = 22，25%）、专家评估（n = 19，21%）和用户的影响故事（n = 14，16%），但所有文章中只有30%（n = 26）报告了可用性评估。有用性常常是从与决策者的假定相关性（n = 17，19%）、利益相关者的轶事反馈（n = 16，18%）以及用户参与度指标（n = 14，16%）推断出来的，而不是通过严格测试。在审查时，只有47%（n = 42）的仪表盘仍然可以访问或处于活动状态。
研究结果揭示了当前关于公共卫生仪表盘的设计、实施和效用的知识存在碎片化和缺乏科学严谨性的问题。将这些工具的可用性、有用性以及使用与用户的决策和行动联系起来的连贯理论阐述和直接实证测试严重缺失。在这种背景下，对可操作性进行更完整的阐释和实施有很大潜力填补这一空白，并推动未来的学术研究和实践。
