ArticleJAMIA open2024
Investigation on the preferences for data quality assessment indicators of electronic health records: user-oriented perspective.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Semantics-driven improvements in electronic health records data quality: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Development and application of a healthcare data quality indicator framework from the perspective of data-as-a-product.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to investigate whether different types of electronic health record (EHR) users have distinct preferences for data quality assessment indicators (DQAI) and explore how these preferences can guide the enhancement of EHR systems and the optimization of related policies. Materials and Methods: High-frequency indicators were identified by a systematic literature review to construct a DQAI system, which was assessed by a user-oriented investigation involving doctors, nurses, hospital supervisors, and clinical researchers. The entropy weight method and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model were employed for the system comprehensive evaluation. Exploratory factor analysis was used to construct dimensions, and visualization analysis was utilized to explore preferences at both the indicator and dimension levels. Results: Sixteen indicators were identified to construct the DQAI system and grouped into 2 dimensions: structural and relational. The DQAI system achieved a comprehensive evaluation score of 90.445, corresponding to a "very important" membership level (62.5%). Doctors and nurses exhibited a higher score mean (4.43-4.66 out of 5) than supervisors (3.73-4.55 out of 5). Researchers emphasized credibility, with a score mean of 4.79 out of 5. Discussion: The findings reveal that different types of EHR users exhibit distinct preferences for the DQAI at both indicator and dimension levels. Doctors and nurses thought that all indicators were important, clinical researchers emphasized credibility, and supervisors focused mainly on accuracy. Indicators in the relational dimension were generally more valued than structural ones. Doctors and nurses prioritized indicators of relational dimension, while researchers and supervisors leaned towards indicators of structural dimension. These insights suggest that tailored approaches in EHR system development and policy-making could enhance EHR data quality. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of user-centered approaches in optimizing EHR systems, highlighting diverse user preferences at both indicator and dimension levels.
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.