Health Information Systems Evaluation Criteria: Overview of Systematic Reviews

Ali Sharifi Kia, M. Beheshti, L. Shahmoradi
{"title":"Health Information Systems Evaluation Criteria: Overview of Systematic Reviews","authors":"Ali Sharifi Kia, M. Beheshti, L. Shahmoradi","doi":"10.30699/fhi.v11i1.376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Health information systems play an important role in improving the quality of patient care and patient safety. to ensure their effectiveness and efficiency, they need to be evaluated. Although HIS evaluation has been investigated in many studies, there is no consensus on which aspects of HIS to evaluate. The aim of this study is to identify the indicators for the evaluation of health information systems and to provide an overview of the criteria devised and studies conducted.Methods: An umbrella review was performed exploring databases PubMed, Science direct, Web of Science, Science, and IEEE while following the PRISMA protocol. Articles were reviewed by two authors independently using the covidence tool to check the inclusion criteria and to extract the data items. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBIS and AMSTAR.Result: All included studies showed a high risk of bias according to ROBIS criteria. The extracted evaluation criteria were classified into 13 categories. Most of the studies believe that a more reliable and standardized tool is needed for the evaluation of health information systems. Two studies mentioned that surveys and questionnaires were the most commonly used method for evaluation of the systems. Summative evaluation was the most used method in two studies and the least used method in another one study.Conclusion: All the included studies had high risk of bias. Accordingly, further research and evidence is needed in this field. Most of the studies highlighted the need for more reliable and standardized tools for evaluation of health information systems.","PeriodicalId":154611,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Health Informatics","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Health Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30699/fhi.v11i1.376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Health information systems play an important role in improving the quality of patient care and patient safety. to ensure their effectiveness and efficiency, they need to be evaluated. Although HIS evaluation has been investigated in many studies, there is no consensus on which aspects of HIS to evaluate. The aim of this study is to identify the indicators for the evaluation of health information systems and to provide an overview of the criteria devised and studies conducted.Methods: An umbrella review was performed exploring databases PubMed, Science direct, Web of Science, Science, and IEEE while following the PRISMA protocol. Articles were reviewed by two authors independently using the covidence tool to check the inclusion criteria and to extract the data items. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBIS and AMSTAR.Result: All included studies showed a high risk of bias according to ROBIS criteria. The extracted evaluation criteria were classified into 13 categories. Most of the studies believe that a more reliable and standardized tool is needed for the evaluation of health information systems. Two studies mentioned that surveys and questionnaires were the most commonly used method for evaluation of the systems. Summative evaluation was the most used method in two studies and the least used method in another one study.Conclusion: All the included studies had high risk of bias. Accordingly, further research and evidence is needed in this field. Most of the studies highlighted the need for more reliable and standardized tools for evaluation of health information systems.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卫生信息系统评价标准:系统评价概述
卫生信息系统在提高患者护理质量和患者安全方面发挥着重要作用。为了确保它们的有效性和效率,需要对它们进行评估。虽然在许多研究中对HIS的评价进行了调查,但对HIS的哪些方面进行评价尚无共识。本研究的目的是确定评价卫生信息系统的指标,并概述所制订的标准和所进行的研究。方法:在遵循PRISMA协议的情况下,对PubMed、Science direct、Web of Science、Science和IEEE数据库进行综合评价。两位作者使用冠状病毒工具独立审查文章,以检查纳入标准并提取数据项。使用ROBIS和AMSTAR评估偏倚风险。结果:根据ROBIS标准,所有纳入的研究均显示高偏倚风险。提取的评价标准分为13类。大多数研究认为,需要一种更可靠和标准化的工具来评估卫生信息系统。两项研究提到,调查和调查表是评价这些制度最常用的方法。总结性评价是两项研究中使用最多的方法,另一项研究中使用最少的方法。结论:所有纳入的研究均存在高偏倚风险。因此,这一领域还需要进一步的研究和实证。大多数研究强调需要更可靠和标准化的工具来评价卫生信息系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Self-Care Application for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Identifying Key Data Elements Effective use of electronic health records system for healthcare delivery in Ghana Predictive Modeling of COVID-19 Hospitalization Using Twenty Machine Learning Classification Algorithms on Cohort Data Development and Usability Evaluation of a Web-Based Health Information Technology Dashboard of Quality and Economic Indicators Potentially Highly Effective Drugs for COVID-19: Virtual Screening and Molecular Docking Study Through PyRx-Vina Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1