Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39478788›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024

A national unmet needs assessment for CTSA-affiliated electronic health record data networks: A customer discovery approach.

Nallely Mora, Madeline Mehall, Lindsay A Lennox, Harold A Pincus, David Charron, Elaine H Morrato

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Nallely MoraParkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2103-0861
Madeline MehallParkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lindsay A LennoxColorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8954-749X
Harold A PincusIrving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
David CharronHaas School of Business, NSF and NIH I-Corps Programs, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Elaine H MorratoParkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6105-7826

Funding

The Institute for Translational MedicineUL1TR002389 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Joshua J Jacobs, DAVID O MELTZER · 2017 to 2026
$71.6M
ENACT: Translating Health Informatics Tools to Research and Clinical Decision MakingU24TR004111 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI STEVEN E REIS, SHYAM VISWESWARAN · 2022 to 2026
$23.3M
CTSA UM1 Program at University of UtahUM1TR004409 · NCATS · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI RACHEL HESS, Jennifer Juhl Majersik · 2023 to 2026
$21.9M
NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR004111NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002389NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004409
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The expansion of electronic health record (EHR) data networks over the last two decades has significantly improved the accessibility and processes around data sharing. However, there lies a gap in meeting the needs of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, particularly related to real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE). Methods: We adopted a mixed-methods approach to construct a comprehensive needs assessment that included: (1) A Landscape Context analysis to understand the competitive environment; and (2) Customer Discovery to identify stakeholders and the value proposition related to EHR data networks. Methods included surveys, interviews, and a focus group. Results: Thirty-two CTSA institutions contributed data for analysis. Fifty-four interviews and one focus group were conducted. The synthesis of our findings pivots around five emergent themes: (1) CTSA segmentation needs vary according to resources; (2) Team science is key for success; (3) Quality of data generates trust in the network; (4) Capacity building is defined differently by researcher career stage and CTSA existing resources; and (5) Researchers' unmet needs. Conclusions: Based on the results, EHR data networks like ENACT that would like to meet the expectations of academic research centers within the CTSA consortium need to consider filling the gaps identified by our study: foster team science, improve workforce capacity, achieve data governance trust and efficiency of operation, and aid Learning Health Systems with validating, applying, and scaling the evidence to support quality improvement and high-value care. These findings align with the NIH NCATS Strategic Plan for Data Science.

Indexed as

Clinical and translational science awardclinical informaticscommon data modeldata networkelectronic health recordsimplementation sciencereal-world datareal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID39478788
PMCPMC11523010

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.