MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312250050 · doi:10.2196/41408

Assessment of Stakeholder Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Health Data Governance Principles in Botswana: Web-Based Survey

2022· article· en· W4312250050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kagiso Ndlovu, Kabelo Leonard Mauco, Star Chibemba, Steven Wanyee, Tom Oluoch

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthHealth careNursingHealth informaticsPsychologyPublic relationsMedical educationKnowledge managementBusinessMedicinePolitical sciencePublic healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of information and communication technologies for health-eHealth-is described as having potential to improve the quality of health care service delivery. Consequently, there is an increased global trend toward adoption of eHealth interventions by health care systems worldwide. Despite the proliferation of eHealth solutions, many health care institutions especially in transitioning countries are struggling to attain effective data governance approaches. The Ministry of Health in Botswana is an exemplar institution continually seeking better approaches to strengthen health data governance (HDG) approaches following the adoption of eHealth solutions. Recognizing the need for a global HDG framework, the Transform Health coalition conceptualized HDG principles that are structured around 3 interconnected objectives: protecting people, promoting the value of health, and prioritizing equity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to solicit and evaluate perceptions and attitudes of health sector workers in Botswana toward the HDG principles by Transform Health and derive any future guidance. METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to select participants. A total of 23 participants from various health care organizations in Botswana completed a web-based survey and 10 participated in a follow-up remote round-table discussion. The aim of the round-table discussion was to gain further insight into participants' responses from the web-based survey. Participants were from the following health care cadres: nurses, doctors, information technology professionals, and health informaticians. Both validity and reliability testing were performed for the survey tool before sharing it with study participants. An analysis of participants' close-ended responses from the survey was performed using descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses from the questionnaire and the round-table discussion was achieved using the Delve software and the widely accepted principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Although some participants highlighted having measures in place similar to the HDG principles, there were some who either did not know or disagreed that their organizations already had in place mechanisms similar to the proposed HDG principles. Participants further expressed relevance and importance of the HDG principles in the context of Botswana. However, some modifications to the principles were also suggested. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the necessity of data governance in health care particularly toward meeting the requirements for Universal Health Coverage. The existence of other health data governance frameworks calls for a critical analysis to assess the most appropriate and applicable framework in the context of Botswana and similar transitioning countries. An organization-centered approach may be most appropriate, as well as strengthening of existing organizations' HDG practices with the Transform Health principles.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.538
GPT teacher head0.600
Teacher spread0.062 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207