ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
A Novel Framework to Assess Clinical Information in Digital Health Technologies: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. 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.
- Expert narrative review on the impact of value-based healthcare on medical quality and patient safety system restructuring.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Health Self-Management Behaviors as a Bridge Between Electronic Health Literacy and Health-Related Quality of Life: Cross-Sectional Study From China.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health is a critical driver of quality, safety, and efficiency in health care. However, poor quality of clinical information in digital health technologies (DHTs) can compromise the quality and safety of care. The Clinical Information Quality (CLIQ) framework was developed, based on a systemic review of literature and an international eDelphi study, as a tool to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. objectives: The aim of this study is to assess the applicability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the CLIQ framework. Methods: This study was conducted as a cross-sectional survey of health care professionals across the United Kingdom who regularly use SystmOne electronic health records. Participants were invited through emails and social media platforms. The CLIQ questionnaire was administered as a web-based survey. Spearman correlation coefficients were computed to investigate the linear relationship between the dimensions in the CLIQ framework. The Cronbach α coefficients were computed to assess the internal consistency of the global scale (ie, CLIQ framework) and the subscales (ie, the informativeness, availability, and usability categories). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the extent to which the survey data supported the construct validity of the CLIQ framework. Results: A total of 109 health care professionals completed the survey, of which two-thirds (67, 61.5%) were doctors and a quarter (26, 23.9%) were nurses or advanced nurse practitioners. Overall, the CLIQ dimensions had good quality scores except for portability, which had a modest score. The inter-item correlations were all positive and not likely due to chance. The Cronbach α coefficient for the overall CLIQ framework was 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.92). The confirmatory factor analysis provided a modest support for the construct validity of the CLIQ framework with the comparative fit index of 0.86 and standardized root mean square residual of 0.08. Conclusions: The CLIQ framework demonstrated a high reliability and a modest construct validity. The CLIQ framework offers a pragmatic approach to assessing the quality of clinical information in DHTs and could be applied as part of information quality assurance systems in health care settings to improve quality of health information.
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.