ArticleJournal of medical systems2018
Towards a Clinical Trial Protocol to Evaluate Health Information Systems: Evaluation of a Computerized System for Monitoring Tuberculosis from a Patient Perspective in Brazil.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- EDDAMAP: efficient data-dependent approach for monitoring asymptomatic patient.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Use of Digital Technology to Enhance Tuberculosis Control: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessment of health information systems consider different aspects of the system itself. They focus or on the professional who will use the software or on its usability or on the software engineering metrics or on financial and managerial issues. The existent approaches are very resources consuming, disconnected, and not standardized. As the software becomes more critical in the health organizations and in patients, becoming used as a medical device or a medicine, there is an urgency to identify tools and methods that can be applied in the development process. The present work is one of the steps of a broader study to identify standardized protocols to evaluate the health information systems as medicines and medical devices are evaluated by clinical trials. The goal of the present work was to evaluate the effect of the introduction of an information system for monitoring tuberculosis treatment (SISTB) in a Brazilian municipality from the patients' perspective. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems were answered by the patients before and after the SISTB introduction, for comparison. Patients from an outpatient clinic, formed the control group, that is, at this site was not implanted the SISTB. Descriptive statistics and mixed effects model were used for data analysis. Eighty-eight interviews were conducted in the study. The questionnaire's results presented better averages after the system introduction but were not considered statistically significant. Therefore, it was not possible to associate system implantation with improved patient satisfaction. The HIS evaluation need be complete, the technical and managerial evaluation, the safety, the impact on the professionals and direct and/or indirect impact on patients are important. Developing the right tools and methods that can evaluate the software in its entirety, from the beginning of the development cycle with a normalized scale, are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29737418What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.