System interoperability and data linkage in the era of health information management: A bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Across the world, health data generation is growing exponentially. The continuous rise of new and diversified technology to obtain and handle health data places health information management and governance under pressure. Lack of data linkage and interoperability between systems undermines best efforts to optimise integrated health information technology solutions. Objective : This research aimed to provide a bibliometric overview of the role of interoperability and linkage in health data management and governance. Method : Data were acquired by entering selected search queries into Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science databases and bibliometric data obtained were then imported to Endnote and checked for duplicates. The refined data were exported to Excel, where several levels of filtration were applied to obtain the final sample. These sample data were analysed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Washington, USA), WORDSTAT (Provalis Research, Montreal, Canada) and VOSviewer software (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands). Results : The literature sample was retrieved from 3799 unique results and consisted of 63 articles, present in 45 different publications, both evaluated by two specific in-house global impact rankings. Through VOSviewer, three main clusters were identified: (i) e-health information stakeholder needs; (ii) e-health information quality assessment; and (iii) e-health information technological governance trends. A residual correlation between interoperability and linkage studies in the sample was also found. Conclusion : Assessing stakeholders’ needs is crucial for establishing an efficient and effective health information system. Further and diversified research is needed to assess the integrated placement of interoperability and linkage in health information management and governance. Implications : This research has provided valuable managerial and theoretical contributions to optimise system interoperability and data linkage within health information research and information technology solutions.
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 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 | 0.070 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.225 | 0.325 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".