MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940838900 · doi:10.1177/1833358319839253

Development of an evidence-based e-health readiness assessment framework for Uganda

2019· article· en· W2940838900 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Information Management Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Focus groupPsychologyMedical educationInformation and Communications TechnologyProject commissioningPublishingApplied psychologyKnowledge managementMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.380 · 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