ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
A Standardized Framework for Evaluating State Opioid Surveillance Dashboards: A Health Informatics Assessment.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundState public health agencies across the U.S. depend on opioid surveillance dashboards to monitor overdose trends and guide interventions. Despite their central role in decision-making, no standardized framework exists to evaluate how well these dashboards actually function.
objectiveWe developed a health informatics framework to systematically assess state opioid surveillance dashboards and applied it across all 50 U.S. states.
methodsOur framework evaluates dashboards across nine domains (including temporal analysis, geographic granularity, data disaggregation, visualization features, narrative support, simplification techniques, and interactive functionality) using 28 specific sub-variables. Sub-variables were selected based on public health informatics literature on effective dashboard design, including features identified in COVID-19 dashboard evaluations and usability frameworks. We scored each feature as either present or absent, creating composite scores with a theoretical maximum of 28 points. All 50 U.S. state-level dashboards were reviewed twice by the study team, with an external consistency check on a subset of 10 dashboards. We calculated the correlation coefficient between dashboard scores and state population estimates.
resultsDashboard scores varied widely, ranging from 12 to 22 points (mean:19.18, standard deviation:2.20). Three states (Delaware, Indiana, and New York) achieved the highest score of 22 by offering comprehensive geographic detail, extensive data breakdowns, and full interactive capabilities. Interactive filtering was present in 92% of dashboards, but only 80% enabled switching between visualization modes. While nearly all dashboards showed time trends, only 6% provided zip code-level detail, and over a third lacked race and ethnicity data. Single external reviewer demonstrated strong correlation (r = 0.84, p = 0.002). Dashboard scores were not correlated with state population size (r = 0.187, p = 0.193).
conclusionsState opioid surveillance dashboards varied substantially in observable capabilities. This framework provides a standardized method to compare dashboard features and identify gaps that may inform future refinement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42176193What 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.