Publications

BibTex format

@article{Fadahunsi:2022:10.2196/41889,
author = {Fadahunsi, KP and Wark, PA and Mastellos, N and Neves, AL and Gallagher, J and Majeed, A and Webster, A and Smith, A and Choo-Kang, B and Leon, C and Edwards, C and O'Shea, C and Heitz, E and Kayode, OV and Kowalski, M and Jiwani, M and OCallaghan, ME and Zary, N and Henderson, N and Chavannes, NH and ivljak, R and Olubiyi, OA and Mahapatra, P and Panday, RN and Oriji, SO and Fox, TE and Faint, V and Car, J},
doi = {10.2196/41889},
journal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},
pages = {1--10},
title = {Assessment of clinical information quality in digital health technologies: an international eDelphi study},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/41889},
volume = {24},
year = {2022}
}

Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background:Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs.Objective:This study explored clinicians’ perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework.Methods:We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions.Results:Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity.Conclusions:The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used b
AU  - Fadahunsi,KP
AU  - Wark,PA
AU  - Mastellos,N
AU  - Neves,AL
AU  - Gallagher,J
AU  - Majeed,A
AU  - Webster,A
AU  - Smith,A
AU  - Choo-Kang,B
AU  - Leon,C
AU  - Edwards,C
AU  - O'Shea,C
AU  - Heitz,E
AU  - Kayode,OV
AU  - Kowalski,M
AU  - Jiwani,M
AU  - OCallaghan,ME
AU  - Zary,N
AU  - Henderson,N
AU  - Chavannes,NH
AU  - ivljak,R
AU  - Olubiyi,OA
AU  - Mahapatra,P
AU  - Panday,RN
AU  - Oriji,SO
AU  - Fox,TE
AU  - Faint,V
AU  - Car,J
DO  - 10.2196/41889
EP  - 10
PY  - 2022///
SN  - 1438-8871
SP  - 1
TI  - Assessment of clinical information quality in digital health technologies: an international eDelphi study
T2  - Journal of Medical Internet Research
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/41889
UR  - https://www.jmir.org/2022/12/e41889
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/102256
VL  - 24
ER  -

Download

DrPetraWark

Contact

Location

Summary

Citation

BibTex format

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)