Tentative renderings: Describing local data infrastructures that support the implementation and evaluation of national evaluation Initiatives.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Journal of Biomedical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104814
Jennifer Van Tiem, Nicole L Johnson, Erin Balkenende, DeShauna Jones, Julia E Friberg Walhof, Emily E Chasco, Jane Moeckli, Kenda S Steffensmeier, Melissa J A Steffen, Kanika Arora, Borsika A Rabin, Heather Schacht Reisinger
{"title":"Tentative renderings: Describing local data infrastructures that support the implementation and evaluation of national evaluation Initiatives.","authors":"Jennifer Van Tiem, Nicole L Johnson, Erin Balkenende, DeShauna Jones, Julia E Friberg Walhof, Emily E Chasco, Jane Moeckli, Kenda S Steffensmeier, Melissa J A Steffen, Kanika Arora, Borsika A Rabin, Heather Schacht Reisinger","doi":"10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Data journeys are a way to describe and interrogate \"the life of data\" (Bates et al 2010). Thus far, they have been used to clarify the mobile nature of data by visualizing the pathways made by handling and moving data. We wanted to use the data journeys method (Eleftheriou et al. 2018) to compare different data journeys by noticing repetitions, patterns, and gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative interviews with 43 evaluators, implementers and administrators associated with 21 clinical and training programs, called \"Enterprise-Wide Initiatives\" (EWIs) that are part of a national health system in the United States. We used inductive and deductive coding to identify narratives of data journeys, and then we used the \"swim lane\" (Collar et al 2012) format to make data journey maps based on those narratives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Unlike the actors in Eleftheriou et al. (2018)'s work, who built a data infrastructure to manage clinical data, the actors in our study built data infrastructures to evaluate clinical data. We created and compared two data journey maps that helped us explore differences in data production and management. In tracing the pathways available to the data entity of interest, and the processes through which the actors interacted with it, we noticed how the same piece of information was made to work in different ways.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Researchers often must build a new data infrastructures to respond to the unique needs of their evaluation work. Differing abilities lead to differences in what programs can build, and consequently what kinds of evaluation work they can support. With the goal of straightforward comparisons across different programs, a more limited focus on quantitative values, and a better description of the data journeys used by the evaluation teams, might facilitate more nuanced assessments of the evidence of complex outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15263,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":"104814"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104814","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Data journeys are a way to describe and interrogate "the life of data" (Bates et al 2010). Thus far, they have been used to clarify the mobile nature of data by visualizing the pathways made by handling and moving data. We wanted to use the data journeys method (Eleftheriou et al. 2018) to compare different data journeys by noticing repetitions, patterns, and gaps.

Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 43 evaluators, implementers and administrators associated with 21 clinical and training programs, called "Enterprise-Wide Initiatives" (EWIs) that are part of a national health system in the United States. We used inductive and deductive coding to identify narratives of data journeys, and then we used the "swim lane" (Collar et al 2012) format to make data journey maps based on those narratives.

Results: Unlike the actors in Eleftheriou et al. (2018)'s work, who built a data infrastructure to manage clinical data, the actors in our study built data infrastructures to evaluate clinical data. We created and compared two data journey maps that helped us explore differences in data production and management. In tracing the pathways available to the data entity of interest, and the processes through which the actors interacted with it, we noticed how the same piece of information was made to work in different ways.

Conclusions: Researchers often must build a new data infrastructures to respond to the unique needs of their evaluation work. Differing abilities lead to differences in what programs can build, and consequently what kinds of evaluation work they can support. With the goal of straightforward comparisons across different programs, a more limited focus on quantitative values, and a better description of the data journeys used by the evaluation teams, might facilitate more nuanced assessments of the evidence of complex outcomes.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Journal of Biomedical Informatics 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
243
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomedical Informatics reflects a commitment to high-quality original research papers, reviews, and commentaries in the area of biomedical informatics methodology. Although we publish articles motivated by applications in the biomedical sciences (for example, clinical medicine, health care, population health, and translational bioinformatics), the journal emphasizes reports of new methodologies and techniques that have general applicability and that form the basis for the evolving science of biomedical informatics. Articles on medical devices; evaluations of implemented systems (including clinical trials of information technologies); or papers that provide insight into a biological process, a specific disease, or treatment options would generally be more suitable for publication in other venues. Papers on applications of signal processing and image analysis are often more suitable for biomedical engineering journals or other informatics journals, although we do publish papers that emphasize the information management and knowledge representation/modeling issues that arise in the storage and use of biological signals and images. System descriptions are welcome if they illustrate and substantiate the underlying methodology that is the principal focus of the report and an effort is made to address the generalizability and/or range of application of that methodology. Note also that, given the international nature of JBI, papers that deal with specific languages other than English, or with country-specific health systems or approaches, are acceptable for JBI only if they offer generalizable lessons that are relevant to the broad JBI readership, regardless of their country, language, culture, or health system.
期刊最新文献
A novel data-driven approach for Personas validation in healthcare using self-supervised machine learning. Tentative renderings: Describing local data infrastructures that support the implementation and evaluation of national evaluation Initiatives. MedicalGLM: A Pediatric Medical Question Answering Model with a quality evaluation mechanism FedIMPUTE: Privacy-preserving missing value imputation for multi-site heterogeneous electronic health records Enhancing generalization of medical image segmentation via game theory-based domain selection
×
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