Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
IntroductionHealthcare professionals (HCPs) often recommend their patients to use a specific mHealth app as part of health promotion, disease prevention and patient self-management. There has been a significant growth in the number of HCPs downloading and using mobile health (mHealth) apps. Most mHealth apps that are available in app stores employ a ‘star rating’ system. This is based on user feedback on an app, but is highly subjective. Thus, the identification of quality mHealth apps which are deemed fit for purpose can be a difficult task for HCPs. Currently, there is no unified, validated standard guidelines for assessment of mHealth apps for patient safety, which can be used by HCPs. The Modified Enlight Suite (MES) is a quality assessment framework designed to provide a means for HCPs to evaluate mHealth apps before they are recommended to patients. MES was adapted from the original Enlight Suite for international use through a Delphi method, followed by preliminary validation process among a population predominantly consisting of medical students. This study aims to evaluate the applicability and validity of the MES, by HCPs, in low, middle and high income country settings.Methods and analysisMES will be evaluated through a mixed-method study, consisting of qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey instruments) research, in three target countries: Malaŵi (low income), South Africa (middle income) and Ireland (high income). The focus groups will be conducted through Microsoft Teams (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA) and surveys will be conducted online using Qualtrics (Qualtrics International, Seattle, Washington, USA). Participants will be recruited through the help of national representatives in Malawi (Mzuzu University), South Africa (University of Fort Hare) and Ireland (University College Cork) by email invitation. Data analysis for the focus group will be by the means of thematic analysis. Data analysis for the survey will use descriptive statistics and use Cronbach alpha as an indicator of internal consistency of the MES. The construct validity of the mHealth app will be assessed by computing the confirmatory factor analysis using Amos.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the Social Research Ethics Committee (SREC) SREC/SOM/03092021/1 at University College Cork, Ireland, Malaŵi Research Ethics Committee (MREC), Malaŵi MZUNIREC/DOR/21/59 and Inter-Faculty Research Ethics Committee (IFREC) of University of Fort Hare (REC-2 70 710-028-RA). The results of the study will be disseminated through the internet, peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.
IntroductionHealthcare professionals (HCPs) often recommend their patients to use a specific mHealth app as part of health promotion, disease prevention and patient self-management. There has been a significant growth in the number of HCPs downloading and using mobile health (mHealth) apps. Most mHealth apps that are available in app stores employ a ‘star rating’ system. This is based on user feedback on an app, but is highly subjective. Thus, the identification of quality mHealth apps which are deemed fit for purpose can be a difficult task for HCPs. Currently, there is no unified, validated standard guidelines for assessment of mHealth apps for patient safety, which can be used by HCPs. The Modified Enlight Suite (MES) is a quality assessment framework designed to provide a means for HCPs to evaluate mHealth apps before they are recommended to patients. MES was adapted from the original Enlight Suite for international use through a Delphi method, followed by preliminary validation process among a population predominantly consisting of medical students. This study aims to evaluate the applicability and validity of the MES, by HCPs, in low, middle and high income country settings.Methods and analysisMES will be evaluated through a mixed-method study, consisting of qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey instruments) research, in three target countries: Malaŵi (low income), South Africa (middle income) and Ireland (high income). The focus groups will be conducted through Microsoft Teams (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA) and surveys will be conducted online using Qualtrics (Qualtrics International, Seattle, Washington, USA). Participants will be recruited through the help of national representatives in Malawi (Mzuzu University), South Africa (University of Fort Hare) and Ireland (University College Cork) by email invitation. Data analysis for the focus group will be by the means of thematic analysis. Data analysis for the survey will use descriptive statistics and use Cronbach alpha as an indicator of internal consistency of the MES. The construct validity of the mHealth app will be assessed by computing the confirmatory factor analysis using Amos.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the Social Research Ethics Committee (SREC) SREC/SOM/03092021/1 at University College Cork, Ireland, Malaŵi Research Ethics Committee (MREC), Malaŵi MZUNIREC/DOR/21/59 and Inter-Faculty Research Ethics Committee (IFREC) of University of Fort Hare (REC-2 70 710-028-RA). The results of the study will be disseminated through the internet, peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.
BACKGROUND Digital health is a critical driver of quality, safety, and efficiency in healthcare. However, poor quality of clinical information in Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) can compromise the quality and safety of care. The Clinical Information Quality (CLIQ) framework was developed as a pragmatic tool to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to assesses the applicability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the CLIQ framework. METHODS This study was conducted as a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals across the UK who regularly use SystmOne Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Participants were invited through emails and social media platforms. The CLIQ questionnaire, developed based on systemic review and international eDelphi study, was administered as an online survey. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were computed to investigate the linear relationship between the dimensions in the CLIQ framework. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed to assess the internal consistency of the global scale (i.e., CLIQ framework) and the sub-scales (i.e., the informativeness, availability and usability categories). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the extent to which the survey data supported the construct validity of the CLIQ framework. RESULTS A total of 109 healthcare professionals completed the survey, of which two-third (n = 67; 61.5%) were doctors and a quarter (n = 26; 23.9%) were nurses or advance nurse practitioner. Overall, the CLIQ dimensions had good quality scores except for portability which had a modest score. The inter-item correlations were all positive and not likely due to chance. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the overall CLIQ framework was 0.89 (95 CI%: 0.85 – 0.92). The confirmatory factor analysis provided a modest support for the construct validity of the CLIQ framework with the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.86 and Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) of 0.08. CONCLUSIONS The CLIQ framework demonstrated a high reliability and a modest construct validity. The CLIQ framework offers a pragmatic approach to assessing the quality of clinical information in DHTs and could be applied as part of information quality assurance systems in healthcare settings to improve quality of health information.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.