The path from big data analytics capabilities to value in hospitals: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the uptake of health information technologies increased, most healthcare organizations have become producers of big data. A growing number of hospitals are investing in the development of big data analytics (BDA) capabilities. If the promises associated with these capabilities are high, how hospitals create value from it remains unclear. The present study undertakes a scoping review of existing research on BDA use in hospitals to describe the path from BDA capabilities (BDAC) to value and its associated challenges. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's 5 stages framework. A systematic search strategy was adopted to identify relevant articles in Scopus and Web of Science. Data charting and extraction were performed following an analytical framework that builds on the resource-based view of the firm to describe the path from BDA capabilities to value in hospitals. RESULTS: Of 1,478 articles identified, 94 were included. Most of them are experimental research (n=69) published in medical (n=66) or computer science journals (n=28). The main value targets associated with the use of BDA are improving the quality of decision-making (n=56) and driving innovation (n=52) which apply mainly to care (n=67) and administrative (n=48) activities. To reach these targets, hospitals need to adequately combine BDA capabilities and value creation mechanisms (VCM) to enable knowledge generation and drive its assimilation. Benefits are endpoints of the value creation process. They are expected in all articles but realized in a few instances only (n=19). CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the value creation potential of BDA solutions in hospitals. It also shows the organizational challenges that prevent hospitals from generating actual benefits from BDAC-building efforts. The configuring of strategies, technologies and organizational capabilities underlying the development of value-creating BDA solutions should become a priority area for research, with focus on the mechanisms that can drive the alignment of BDA and organizational strategies, and the development of organizational capabilities to support knowledge generation and assimilation.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".