MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283894405

Defining evaluation indicators of health information systemsand a Model Presentation

2007· article· en· W2283894405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamid Haghani

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceHealth informationManagement scienceData sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Health information systems have designed in order to manage health information fluency for improving healthcare quality. It is necessary to conduct continues evaluations to do epidemiologic researches and manage health information systems, enhance quality and decrease costs. Unfortunately there isn’t a framework for that foeus on the measurement methods and indicators in our country.Objective of this research is defining steps, study design methods, data sources and indicators of health information systems evaluation. Methods: This research was cross sectional-description and conducted in 2004. At first studies books in library, and searched on internet to find related information. After that then we categorized developed indicators by Canada and England according their importance. Thereafter we sent a 20 keys questions questionnaire to review for 30 peer reviewers. Although the Questionnaires gived to 35 persons, but it full by 28. These persons were teaching staff in universities and specialists in health information systems. Selected indicators as the most important indictors were which over75% sight selected them high and very high degree. After gathering questionnaire, results analyze by SPSS. Results: There are six steps to evaluate health information system. They include Agree why an evaluation is needed,? Agree when to evaluate? Agree what to evaluate, Agree how to evaluate? analyze and report,?Assess recommendations and decide on actions. there were 13 study designs for health information systems evaluation. finaly indicators provided in three contexts. accountability, performance enhancement and knowledge development. Conclusion: It is necessary to consider human aspects and knowledge development more over economics and financial aspects.conducted evaluation of health information system is based on the accountability that conducted with randomized Controlled trial and qualitative the best evaluation is conducted when use some evaluation methods with considering these indicators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.615
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.075 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207