Protocol for a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of information quality frameworks in eHealth

Introduction Electronic health (eHealth) applications have become a very large repository of health information which informs critical decisions relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of patients. Poor information quality (IQ) within eHealth may compromise patient safety. Evaluation of IQ in eHealth is therefore necessary to promote patient safety. An IQ framework specifies what aspects of information to assess and how to conduct the assessment. This systematic review aims to identify dimensions within existing IQ frameworks in eHealth and develop a new IQ framework for the assessment of eHealth. Method and analysis We will search Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO (American Psychological Association), Global Health, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Health Management Information Consortium and reference lists of relevant publications for articles published in English until November 2018. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Two reviewers will independently extract data in each eligible study using a prepiloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. Thematic synthesis will be employed to define IQ dimensions and develop a new IQ framework for eHealth. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The result of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018097142.

[1]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

[2]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? , 2015, Health information and libraries journal.

[3]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[4]  A. Haig,et al.  BEME Guide No 3: Systematic searching for evidence in medical education--Part 1: Sources of information , 2003, Medical teacher.

[5]  A. Harden,et al.  Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[6]  K. Kerr,et al.  The institutionalisation of data quality in the New Zealand health sector. , 2006 .

[7]  J. Popay,et al.  Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews , 2006 .

[8]  Farah Magrabi,et al.  Patient safety problems associated with heathcare information technology: an analysis of adverse events reported to the US Food and Drug Administration. , 2011, AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium.

[9]  Abdulelah Alwabel,et al.  Toward a framework for data quality in cloud-based health information system , 2013, International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2013).

[10]  Joachim Schöpfel,et al.  Document supply and open access: an international survey on grey literature , 2006 .

[11]  Ping Yu,et al.  A Review of Data Quality Assessment Methods for Public Health Information Systems , 2014, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[12]  Daniel Neagu,et al.  Information Quality Framework for e-Learning Systems , 2010 .

[13]  F. Federico,et al.  The impact of health information technology on patient safety , 2017, Saudi medical journal.

[14]  Katja Jasinskaja,et al.  Elaboration and Explanation ⋆ , 2011 .

[15]  Farah Magrabi,et al.  Clinical safety of England's national programme for IT: A retrospective analysis of all reported safety events 2005 to 2011 , 2015, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[16]  A. Booth,et al.  “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[17]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Paul A. Cairns,et al.  The impact of electronic records on patient safety: a qualitative study , 2016, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[19]  Oksana Zelenko,et al.  Mobile App Rating Scale: A New Tool for Assessing the Quality of Health Mobile Apps , 2015, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[20]  Molly E Waring,et al.  Evaluating and selecting mobile health apps: strategies for healthcare providers and healthcare organizations , 2014, Translational behavioral medicine.

[21]  C. Uk.  Critical appraisal skills programme (CASP): checklists. , 2013 .

[22]  C. Anandan,et al.  The Impact of eHealth on the Quality and Safety of Health Care: A Systematic Overview , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[23]  Martin J. Eppler,et al.  Conceptualizing Information Quality: A Review of Information Quality Frameworks from the Last Ten Years , 2000, IQ.

[24]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[25]  A. Sheikh,et al.  Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation , 2009, PLoS medicine.