Development of an evidence-based e-health readiness assessment framework for Uganda
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: While e-health readiness assessment is vital to the successful implementation of e-health innovations, there is little published guidance (i.e. e-health readiness assessment frameworks (eHRAFs)) for institutions and countries. OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based and locally relevant eHRAF for Uganda. METHOD: A list of possible e-health readiness domains and constructs was developed through a structured review of the e-health literature. This list was first refined using author experience, insight and reflection. Based on this refined list, an eHRAF questionnaire was developed, which was initially pilot tested for face and content validity. Thereafter, it was distributed to 13 purposively selected study participants who were Ugandan e-health experts from the fields of health, information and communications technology (ICT) and academia. The questionnaire was discussed in a focus group setting for consensus input, where study participants confirmed, rejected or revised proposed domains and constructs suitable to guide e-health readiness assessment at either the national or site-specific level within Uganda. RESULTS: Of 148 identified literature resources, 13 met inclusion criteria. A subjective review highlighted 11 frequently used e-health domains. Further reflection reduced these to nine domains, which were shared with study participants by means of the questionnaire. Based upon prior use of, and familiarity with, a management tool (PESTEL), participants' consensus on factors essential for readiness assessment in Uganda was aligned with PESTEL's six domains: political, economic, sociocultural, technological, environmental, and legal and regulatory. The participants considered engagement, and core and societal readiness as optional domains. Based on this input, the authors developed a proposed eHRAF suitable for Uganda, comprised of domains, sub-domains and constructs. CONCLUSION: The eHRAF developed in this research is an evidence-based framework (literature and cross-sectoral expert opinion) and consists of primary domains, sub-domains and constructs suitable for assessing e-health readiness in Uganda, either nationally or locally, prior to implementation of any e-health system. The process and principles may have utility in other countries. IMPLICATIONS: A national, culturally relevant, context-specific Ugandan eHRAF could facilitate efficient and effective planning and implementation of new e-health programmes across the country and assist policymakers and legislators to develop consistent and reliable guidelines and regulations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle