Mapping the evaluation of the electronic health system PEC e-SUS APS in Brazil: a scoping review protocol

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02648-4
Mariano Felisberto, Júlia Meller Dias de Oliveira, Eduarda Talita Bramorski Mohr, Daniel Henrique Scandolara, Ianka Cristina Celuppi, Miliane dos Santos Fantonelli, Raul Sidnei Wazlawick, Eduardo Monguilhott Dalmarco
{"title":"Mapping the evaluation of the electronic health system PEC e-SUS APS in Brazil: a scoping review protocol","authors":"Mariano Felisberto, Júlia Meller Dias de Oliveira, Eduarda Talita Bramorski Mohr, Daniel Henrique Scandolara, Ianka Cristina Celuppi, Miliane dos Santos Fantonelli, Raul Sidnei Wazlawick, Eduardo Monguilhott Dalmarco","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02648-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Brazilian Ministry of Health has developed and provided the Citizen’s Electronic Health Record (PEC e-SUS APS), a health information system freely available for utilization by all municipalities. Given the substantial financial investment being made to enhance the quality of health services in the country, it is crucial to understand how users evaluate this product. Consequently, this scoping review aims to map studies that have evaluated the PEC e-SUS APS. This scoping review is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) framework, as well as by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Checklist extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The research question was framed based on the “CoCoPop” mnemonic (Condition, Context, Population). The final question posed is, “How has the Citizen’s Electronic Health Record (PEC e-SUS APS) been evaluated?” The search strategy will be executed across various databases (LILACS, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Digital Library), along with gray literature from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global and Google Scholar, with assistance from a professional healthcare librarian skilled in supporting systematic reviews. The database search will encompass the period from 2013 to 2024. Articles included will be selected by three independent reviewers in two stages, and the findings will undergo a descriptive analysis and synthesis following a “narrative review” approach. Independent reviewers will chart the data as outlined in the literature. The implementation process for the PEC e-SUS APS can be influenced by the varying characteristics of the over 5500 Brazilian municipalities. These factors and other challenges encountered by health professionals and managers may prove pivotal for a municipality’s adoption of the PEC e-SUS APS system. With the literature mapping to be obtained from this review, vital insights into how users have evaluated the PEC will be obtained. The protocol has been registered prospectively at the Open Science Framework platform under the number 10.17605/OSF.IO/NPKRU.","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"99 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02648-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Brazilian Ministry of Health has developed and provided the Citizen’s Electronic Health Record (PEC e-SUS APS), a health information system freely available for utilization by all municipalities. Given the substantial financial investment being made to enhance the quality of health services in the country, it is crucial to understand how users evaluate this product. Consequently, this scoping review aims to map studies that have evaluated the PEC e-SUS APS. This scoping review is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) framework, as well as by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Checklist extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The research question was framed based on the “CoCoPop” mnemonic (Condition, Context, Population). The final question posed is, “How has the Citizen’s Electronic Health Record (PEC e-SUS APS) been evaluated?” The search strategy will be executed across various databases (LILACS, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Digital Library), along with gray literature from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global and Google Scholar, with assistance from a professional healthcare librarian skilled in supporting systematic reviews. The database search will encompass the period from 2013 to 2024. Articles included will be selected by three independent reviewers in two stages, and the findings will undergo a descriptive analysis and synthesis following a “narrative review” approach. Independent reviewers will chart the data as outlined in the literature. The implementation process for the PEC e-SUS APS can be influenced by the varying characteristics of the over 5500 Brazilian municipalities. These factors and other challenges encountered by health professionals and managers may prove pivotal for a municipality’s adoption of the PEC e-SUS APS system. With the literature mapping to be obtained from this review, vital insights into how users have evaluated the PEC will be obtained. The protocol has been registered prospectively at the Open Science Framework platform under the number 10.17605/OSF.IO/NPKRU.
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
绘制巴西电子医疗系统 PEC e-SUS APS 的评估图:范围界定审查协议
巴西卫生部开发并提供了公民电子健康记录 (PEC e-SUS APS),这是一个供所有城市免费使用的卫生信息系统。鉴于巴西为提高医疗服务质量投入了大量资金,了解用户如何评价这一产品至关重要。因此,本次范围界定审查旨在对评估 PEC e-SUS APS 的研究进行摸底。本范围界定综述以系统综述和元分析协议的首选报告项目 (PRISMA-P) 框架以及范围界定综述的系统综述和元分析首选报告项目清单扩展版 (PRISMA-ScR) 为指导。研究问题是根据 "CoCoPop "记忆法(条件、背景、人群)提出的。提出的最后一个问题是:"如何对市民电子健康记录(PEC e-SUS APS)进行评估?搜索策略将在各种数据库(LILACS、PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、ACM 数字图书馆和 IEEE 数字图书馆)以及 ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global 和 Google Scholar 的灰色文献中执行,并由擅长支持系统综述的专业医疗保健图书管理员提供协助。数据库搜索的时间跨度为 2013 年至 2024 年。收录的文章将由三位独立审稿人分两个阶段进行筛选,并按照 "叙事性综述 "方法对研究结果进行描述性分析和综合。独立审稿人将按照文献中的概述绘制数据图表。PEC e-SUS APS 的实施过程可能会受到巴西 5500 多个城市不同特点的影响。这些因素以及卫生专业人员和管理人员遇到的其他挑战可能会对一个城市采用 PEC e-SUS APS 系统起到关键作用。通过本次审查所获得的文献图谱,我们可以深入了解用户是如何评价 PEC 的。本协议已在开放科学框架平台上进行了前瞻性注册,注册号为 10.17605/OSF.IO/NPKRU。
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
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Choice of primary healthcare providers among population in urban areas of low- and middle-income countries-a protocol for systematic review of literature. Computer-assisted screening in systematic evidence synthesis requires robust and well-evaluated stopping criteria. Patient-related prognostic factors for function and pain after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. The psychometric properties of instruments measuring ethical sensitivity in nursing: a systematic review. Barriers and facilitators to enrollment in pediatric clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews.
×
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