ReviewThe International journal of health planning and management2022
Framework synthesis to inform the ideation and design of a paper-based health information system (PHISICC).
Review in The International journal of health planning and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does a paper-based information system based on a human-centred design (PHISICC) reduce the time needed for reporting health data in Nigeria?BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- Design and content of health facility routine data recording and reporting forms for maternal, newborn, and child health: a scoping review of literature.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- How to design decision-support tools for primary healthcare using a human-centred design approach: the processes and experience of PHISICC in three Sub-Saharan countries.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Framework synthesis to inform the ideation and design of a paper-based health information system (PHISICC).The International journal of health planning and management · 2022Review
- Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the media Health Literacy Questionnaire: A validation study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth information systems (HIS) are meant to support decision-making at all levels of the system, including frontline health workers. In field studies in Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria, we observed health workers' interactions with the HIS and identified twelve decision-making components of HIS. The objective of this framework synthesis is to portray these components in HIS research, in order to inform the ideation of a paper-based HIS intervention (PHISICC).
methodsWe searched studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Epistemonikos, Medline, in-Process on the Ovid platform, OpenGrey, PDQ Evidence ("pretty darnd quick" Evidence), the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Library and included studies focussing on HIS interventions, data quality, information support tools and data use for decision-making in the context of the governmental health care sector. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. We synthesised the findings based on the decision-making components of HIS and thematic areas.
resultsThe search identified 6784 studies; 50 were included. Most of the 50 studies had quality concerns. All studies included at least one of the decision-making components: the most prominent were the technical aspects of 'recording' and 'reporting'. Data use for decision-making was much less represented.
conclusionHIS research focuses on the more technical aspects of HIS. Further research on HIS, given the strong push towards HIS digitalisation, should consider putting at the centre the human experience of decision-making and data use, in order to make HIS relevant for quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.