MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320026948 · doi:10.2196/44784

Integrated Personal Health Record in Indonesia: Design Science Research Study

2023· article· en· W4320026948 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nabila Clydea Harahap, Putu Wuri Handayani, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureStakeholdereHealthKnowledge managementComputer scienceHealth careBusinessPublic relationsGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Personal health records (PHRs) are consumer-centric tools designed to facilitate the tracking, management, and sharing of personal health information. PHR research has mainly been conducted in high-income countries rather than in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, previous studies that proposed PHR design in low- and middle-income countries did not describe integration with other systems, or there was no stakeholder involvement in exploring PHR requirements. OBJECTIVE: This study developed an integrated PHR architecture and prototype in Indonesia using design science research. We conducted the research in Indonesia, a low- to middle-income country with the largest population in Southeast Asia and a tiered health system. METHODS: This study followed the design science research guidelines. The requirements were identified through interviews with 37 respondents from health organizations and a questionnaire with 1012 patients. Afterward, the proposed architecture and prototype were evaluated via interviews with 6 IT or eHealth experts. RESULTS: The architecture design refers to The Open Group Architecture Framework version 9.2 and comprises 5 components: architecture vision, business architecture, application architecture, data architecture, and technology architecture. We developed a high-fidelity prototype for patients and physicians. In the evaluation, improvements were made to add the stakeholders and the required functionality to the PHR and add the necessary information to the functions that were developed in the prototype. CONCLUSIONS: We used design science to illustrate PHR integration in Indonesia, which involves related stakeholders in requirement gathering and evaluation. We developed architecture and application prototypes based on health systems in Indonesia, which comprise routine health services, including disease treatment and health examinations, as well as promotive and preventive health efforts.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: Other design
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207