Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25848615›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2014

Leveraging health information exchange to improve population health reporting processes: lessons in using a collaborative-participatory design process.

Debra Revere, Brian E Dixon, Rebecca Hills, Jennifer L Williams, Shaun J Grannis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Applying a Participatory Design Approach to Define Objectives and Properties of a "Data Profiling" Tool for Electronic Health Data.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Debra RevereUniversity of Washington.
Brian E DixonRegenstrief Institute.
Rebecca HillsUniversity of Washington.
Jennifer L WilliamsRegenstrief Institute.
Shaun J GrannisRegenstrief Institute.

Funding

Improving Population Health Through Enhanced Targeted Regional Decision SupportR01HS020909 · AHRQ · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DIXON, BRIAN E. · 2011 to 2015
$2.0M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS020909
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurveillance, or the systematic monitoring of disease within a population, is a cornerstone function of public health. Despite significant investment in information technologies (IT) to improve the public's health, health care providers continue to rely on manual, spontaneous reporting processes that can result in incomplete and delayed surveillance activities.

backgroundParticipatory design principles advocate including real users and stakeholders when designing an information system to ensure high ecological validity of the product, incorporate relevance and context into the design, reduce misconceptions designers can make due to insufficient domain expertise, and ultimately reduce barriers to adoption of the system. This paper focuses on the collaborative and informal participatory design process used to develop enhanced, IT-enabled reporting processes that leverage available electronic health records in a health information exchange to prepopulate notifiable-conditions report forms used by public health authorities.

methodsOver nine months, public health stakeholders, technical staff, and informatics researchers were engaged in a multiphase participatory design process that included public health stakeholder focus groups, investigator-engineering team meetings, public health survey and census regarding high-priority data elements, and codesign of exploratory prototypes and final form mock-ups.

findingsA number of state-mandated report fields that are not highly used or desirable for disease investigation were eliminated, which allowed engineers to repurpose form space for desired and high-priority data elements and improve the usability of the forms. Our participatory design process ensured that IT development was driven by end user expertise and needs, resulting in significant improvements to the layout and functionality of the reporting forms. DISCUSSION: In addition to informing report form development, engaging with public health end users and stakeholders through the participatory design process provided new insights into public health workflow and allowed the team to quickly triage user requests while managing user expectations within the realm of engineering possibilities.

conclusionEngaging public health, engineering staff, and investigators in a shared codesigning process ensured that the new forms will not only meet real-life needs but will also support development of a product that will be adopted and, ultimately, improve communicable and infectious disease reporting by clinicians to public health.

Indexed as

Collaborative DesignDisease NotificationHealth Information TechnologyInformaticsParticipatory DesignPublic HealthPublic Health InformaticsPublic Health SurveillanceQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID25848615
PMCPMC4371487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.