Habibeh Norouzi , Mohammad Hossein Mehrolhassani , Sadrieh Hajesmaeel-Gohari , Leila Ahmadian , Mohammad Mehdi Ghaemi , Mehdi Mohammadi , Reza Khajouei
{"title":"Identification and classification of indicators for evaluating health information systems","authors":"Habibeh Norouzi , Mohammad Hossein Mehrolhassani , Sadrieh Hajesmaeel-Gohari , Leila Ahmadian , Mohammad Mehdi Ghaemi , Mehdi Mohammadi , Reza Khajouei","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Several evaluation methods are used to determine the advantages and disadvantages of healthcare information systems and their contribution to attaining organizational goals. Despite the existence of many evaluation frameworks, there is no comprehensive set of indicators that evaluate different dimensions of information systems. This study aimed to develop a set of indicators for evaluating health information systems.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This research was conducted in three phases. First, based on a literature review of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases, studies using the health information system evaluation methods were extracted. Second, consecutive focus group meetings were held with scientific and executive experts to discuss the list of evaluation indicators extracted from the studies. In these meetings, the experts agreed on including, removing, adding, combining, and grouping the indicators. Third, the indicators were weighted using the Analytical Network Process (ANP) method, and the set of evaluation indicators was finalized.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The review of 177 relevant articles resulted in the extraction of 360 indicators. During the focus group meetings, 174 overlapping and duplicate indicators were eliminated and 61 indicators were added to the model based on experts’ suggestions. The remaining 247 indicators were classified into a four-level hierarchy. The final set consisted of 4 dimensions, 16 criteria, 47 markers, and 180 indicators.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We developed a comprehensive general set of indicators that helps researchers, designers, and developers of health information systems to evaluate different dimensions of these systems. This set can also be used to improve the design of relevant systems.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883723001090","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Several evaluation methods are used to determine the advantages and disadvantages of healthcare information systems and their contribution to attaining organizational goals. Despite the existence of many evaluation frameworks, there is no comprehensive set of indicators that evaluate different dimensions of information systems. This study aimed to develop a set of indicators for evaluating health information systems.
Methods
This research was conducted in three phases. First, based on a literature review of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases, studies using the health information system evaluation methods were extracted. Second, consecutive focus group meetings were held with scientific and executive experts to discuss the list of evaluation indicators extracted from the studies. In these meetings, the experts agreed on including, removing, adding, combining, and grouping the indicators. Third, the indicators were weighted using the Analytical Network Process (ANP) method, and the set of evaluation indicators was finalized.
Results
The review of 177 relevant articles resulted in the extraction of 360 indicators. During the focus group meetings, 174 overlapping and duplicate indicators were eliminated and 61 indicators were added to the model based on experts’ suggestions. The remaining 247 indicators were classified into a four-level hierarchy. The final set consisted of 4 dimensions, 16 criteria, 47 markers, and 180 indicators.
Conclusion
We developed a comprehensive general set of indicators that helps researchers, designers, and developers of health information systems to evaluate different dimensions of these systems. This set can also be used to improve the design of relevant systems.
期刊介绍：
Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments.
HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology.
Topics covered by HPT will include:
- Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems
- Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches
- National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives
- Cross-border eHealth including health tourism
- The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare
- Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies
- Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies
- Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making
- Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in)
- Regulation and health economics
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
