Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33970112›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Validation of 4D Components for Measuring Quality of the Public Health Data Collection Process: Elicitation Study.

Hong Chen, Ping Yu, David Hailey, Tingru Cui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Hong ChenSchool of Computing and Information Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9555-8020
Ping YuSchool of Computing and Information Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7910-9396
David HaileySchool of Computing and Information Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0797-9090
Tingru CuiSchool of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7899-1372

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentification of the essential components of the quality of the data collection process is the starting point for designing effective data quality management strategies for public health information systems. An inductive analysis of the global literature on the quality of the public health data collection process has led to the formation of a preliminary 4D component framework, that is, data collection management, data collection personnel, data collection system, and data collection environment. It is necessary to empirically validate the framework for its use in future research and practice.

objectiveThis study aims to obtain empirical evidence to confirm the components of the framework and, if needed, to further develop this framework.

methodsExpert elicitation was used to evaluate the preliminary framework in the context of the Chinese National HIV/AIDS Comprehensive Response Information Management System. The research processes included the development of an interview guide and data collection form, data collection, and analysis. A total of 3 public health administrators, 15 public health workers, and 10 health care practitioners participated in the elicitation session. A framework qualitative data analysis approach and a quantitative comparative analysis were followed to elicit themes from the interview transcripts and to map them to the elements of the preliminary 4D framework.

resultsA total of 302 codes were extracted from interview transcripts. After iterative and recursive comparison, classification, and mapping, 46 new indicators emerged; 24.8% (37/149) of the original indicators were deleted because of a lack of evidence support and another 28.2% (42/149) were merged. The validated 4D component framework consists of 116 indicators (82 facilitators and 34 barriers). The first component, data collection management, includes data collection protocols and quality assurance. It was measured by 41 indicators, decreased from the original 49% (73/149) to 35.3% (41/116). The second component, data collection environment, was measured by 37 indicators, increased from the original 13.4% (20/149) to 31.9% (37/116). It comprised leadership, training, funding, organizational policy, high-level management support, and collaboration among parallel organizations. The third component, data collection personnel, includes the perception of data collection, skills and competence, communication, and staffing patterns. There was no change in the proportion for data collection personnel (19.5% vs 19.0%), although the number of its indicators was reduced from 29 to 22. The fourth component, the data collection system, was measured using 16 indicators, with a slight decrease in percentage points from 18.1% (27/149) to 13.8% (16/116). It comprised functions, system integration, technical support, and data collection devices.

conclusionsThis expert elicitation study validated and improved the 4D framework. The framework can be useful in developing a questionnaire survey instrument for measuring the quality of the public health data collection process after validation of psychometric properties and item reduction.

Indexed as

Health Information SystemsPublic HealthData ManagementHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and Questionnairescomponent validationdata collectiondata qualityexpert elicitationhealth informaticshealth information systemsHIV/AIDSpublic healthpublic health informatics

Identifiers

PMID33970112
PMCPMC8145089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.