Development and application of Breadth-Depth-Context (BDC), a conceptual framework for measuring technology engagement with a qualified clinical data registry.

IF 2.5 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2024-07-26 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae061
Emma Kersey, Jing Li, Julia Kay, Julia Adler-Milstein, Jinoos Yazdany, Gabriela Schmajuk
{"title":"Development and application of Breadth-Depth-Context (BDC), a conceptual framework for measuring technology engagement with a qualified clinical data registry.","authors":"Emma Kersey, Jing Li, Julia Kay, Julia Adler-Milstein, Jinoos Yazdany, Gabriela Schmajuk","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Despite the proliferation of dashboards that display performance data derived from Qualified Clinical Data Registries (QCDR), the degree to which clinicians and practices engage with such dashboards has not been well described. We aimed to develop a conceptual framework for assessing user engagement with dashboard technology and to demonstrate its application to a rheumatology QCDR.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We developed the BDC (Breadth-Depth-Context) framework, which included concepts of breadth (derived from dashboard sessions), depth (derived from dashboard actions), and context (derived from practice characteristics). We demonstrated its application via user log data from the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry to define engagement profiles and characterize practice-level factors associated with different profiles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We applied the BDC framework to 213 ambulatory practices from the RISE registry in 2020-2021, and classified practices into 4 engagement profiles: not engaged (8%), minimally engaged (39%), moderately engaged (34%), and most engaged (19%). Practices with more patients and with specific electronic health record vendors (eClinicalWorks and eMDs) had a higher likelihood of being in the most engaged group, even after adjusting for other factors.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We developed the BDC framework to characterize user engagement with a registry dashboard and demonstrated its use in a specialty QCDR. The application of the BDC framework revealed a wide range of breadth and depth of use and that specific contextual factors were associated with nature of engagement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Going forward, the BDC framework can be used to study engagement with similar dashboards.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"7 3","pages":"ooae061"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11278873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Despite the proliferation of dashboards that display performance data derived from Qualified Clinical Data Registries (QCDR), the degree to which clinicians and practices engage with such dashboards has not been well described. We aimed to develop a conceptual framework for assessing user engagement with dashboard technology and to demonstrate its application to a rheumatology QCDR.

Materials and methods: We developed the BDC (Breadth-Depth-Context) framework, which included concepts of breadth (derived from dashboard sessions), depth (derived from dashboard actions), and context (derived from practice characteristics). We demonstrated its application via user log data from the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry to define engagement profiles and characterize practice-level factors associated with different profiles.

Results: We applied the BDC framework to 213 ambulatory practices from the RISE registry in 2020-2021, and classified practices into 4 engagement profiles: not engaged (8%), minimally engaged (39%), moderately engaged (34%), and most engaged (19%). Practices with more patients and with specific electronic health record vendors (eClinicalWorks and eMDs) had a higher likelihood of being in the most engaged group, even after adjusting for other factors.

Discussion: We developed the BDC framework to characterize user engagement with a registry dashboard and demonstrated its use in a specialty QCDR. The application of the BDC framework revealed a wide range of breadth and depth of use and that specific contextual factors were associated with nature of engagement.

Conclusion: Going forward, the BDC framework can be used to study engagement with similar dashboards.

开发并应用 "广度-深度-背景"(BDC)这一概念框架,以衡量技术对合格临床数据登记处的参与度。
目的:尽管显示来自合格临床数据登记系统(QCDR)的绩效数据的仪表盘层出不穷,但临床医生和临床实践在多大程度上使用这些仪表盘还没有得到很好的描述。我们旨在开发一个概念框架,用于评估用户对仪表盘技术的参与度,并展示其在风湿病学 QCDR 中的应用:我们开发了 BDC(广度-深度-背景)框架,其中包括广度(从仪表盘会话中得出)、深度(从仪表盘操作中得出)和背景(从实践特征中得出)的概念。我们通过美国风湿病学会的风湿病信息学有效性系统(RISE)注册表中的用户日志数据展示了该框架的应用,以定义参与情况并描述与不同情况相关的实践层面因素:我们将 BDC 框架应用于 2020-2021 年 RISE 登记册中的 213 个非住院诊疗机构,并将诊疗机构分为 4 类:未参与(8%)、最低参与(39%)、中度参与(34%)和高度参与(19%)。即使考虑了其他因素,拥有更多患者和特定电子健康记录供应商(eClinicalWorks 和 eMDs)的医疗机构也更有可能被归入参与度最高的群体:我们开发了 BDC 框架来描述用户参与登记仪表板的情况,并演示了该框架在专科 QCDR 中的应用。BDC框架的应用揭示了使用的广度和深度,特定的背景因素与参与的性质有关:结论:今后,BDC 框架可用于研究类似仪表盘的使用情况。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信