IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/hsgmed/202305.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Design Principles of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs: Crafting and Elaborating the Potential of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs

Author

Listed:
  • Bischof, Anja
  • Salvi, Irene
  • Kuklinski, David
  • Vogel, Justus
  • Geissler, Alexander

Abstract

Objectives: A clinical dashboard is a data-driven clinical decision support tool visualizing mul-tiple key performance indicators in a single report while minimizing time and effort for data gat-hering. Evidence showed that including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical dashboards supports the clinician's understanding of how treatments impact patients' health sta-tus and helps identifying health-related quality of life changes at an early stage. While existing literature mainly focused on the benefits of using disease-specific PROMs in clinical dashboards, the EQ-5D has rarely been investigated despite its potential to assess the patient's overall health status and mental well-being. To address this gap, we aimed to determine design principles for clinical dashboards incorporating generic - i.e., the EQ-5D - and disease-specific PROMs. Methods: We used a three-step approach. First, a scoping literature review summarized the evi-dence of relevant design principles for clinical dashboards in general. Second, insights from inter-views with both software producers and users of clinical dashboards validated and enhanced the results of the literature review. Third, we built dashboard prototype using the knowledge ga-thered in the first two steps, which was finally evaluated by a focus group discussion. Results: We found that the design principles for clinical dashboards do not have to change between different episodes of care. The scoping literature review highlighted to incorporate vari-ous relevant design principles into clinical dashboards, such as patient data, clinical metrics, past PRO assessment scores, or peer-group comparison. Interviews showed that both software pro-ducers and users had similar views on clinical dashboard use, primarily for patient monitoring and interpretation support of PRO data. However, their opinions diverged on the key users, while users favored specialists, dashboard producer expressed their favor for a broader user base. During the focus group discussion, participants found clinical dashboards incorporating PROMs valuable, highlighting the importance getting the possibility of finally considering patients' self-reported health status during consultations. Design principles derived from literature and inter-views aligned with the views expressed during focus group discussions, emphasizing the use of both generic and disease-specific PROMs. Conclusion: The chosen three-step approach permitted cross-checking the state-of-the-art in lite-rature and detecting white spots where users and software producers showed diverging tenden-cies for certain design principles. Our research confirmed that the design principles for different disease areas do not differ. The past score PROM assessment and peer-group comparison were rated, by both the software producers and the users, as the most valuable design principles. Ulti-mately, this research aims to inform the development of clinical dashboards incorporating PROMs.

Suggested Citation

  • Bischof, Anja & Salvi, Irene & Kuklinski, David & Vogel, Justus & Geissler, Alexander, 2023. "Design Principles of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs: Crafting and Elaborating the Potential of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs," Working Paper Series in Health Economics, Management and Policy 2023-05, University of St.Gallen, School of Medicine, Chair of Health Economics, Policy and Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:hsgmed:202305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/280743/1/wps-2023-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Devlin;John Appleby, 2010. "Getting the Most out of PROMs: Putting Health Outcomes at the Heart of NHS Decision-Making," Monograph 000220, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Nancy J. Devlin & Richard Brooks, 2017. "EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    2. Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
    3. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Laika Köse Tamer & Gülten Sucu Dağ, 2020. "The Assessment of Pain and the Quality of Postoperative Pain Management in Surgical Patients," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    5. Max W de Graaf & Inge H F Reininga & Erik Heineman & Mostafa El Moumni, 2019. "The development and internal validation of a model to predict functional recovery after trauma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    7. Madhavan, Naveen & White, Gareth R.T. & Jones, Paul, 2023. "Identifying the value of a clinical information system during the COVID-19 pandemic," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. McDaid, David & Park, A-La, 2023. "Making an economic argument for investment in global mental health: the case of conflict-affected refugees and displaced people," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118149, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Stirling Bryan & Craig Mitton & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Breaking The Addiction To Technology Adoption," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 379-383, April.
    10. Charles F. Manski, 2023. "Using Limited Trial Evidence to Credibly Choose Treatment Dosage when Efficacy and Adverse Effects Weakly Increase with Dose," NBER Working Papers 31305, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Hernández-Alava, Mónica & Pudney, Stephen, 2017. "Econometric modelling of multiple self-reports of health states: The switch from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in evaluating drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 139-152.
    12. Márta Péntek & Ottó Hajdu & Fanni Rencz & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Valentin Brodszky & Petra Baji & Zsombor Zrubka & Klára Major & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Subjective expectations regarding ageing: a cross-sectional online population survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 17-30, June.
    13. Héctor Pifarré i Arolas & Christian Dudel, 2019. "An Ordinal Measure of Population Health," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 1219-1243, June.
    14. Tessa Peasgood & Julia M. Caruana & Clara Mukuria, 2023. "Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(3), pages 201-221, May.
    15. Stephen Poteet & Benjamin M. Craig, 2021. "QALYs for COVID-19: A Comparison of US EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 339-345, May.
    16. Klara Greffin & Holger Muehlan & Neeltje van den Berg & Wolfgang Hoffmann & Oliver Ritter & Michael Oeff & Georg Schomerus & Silke Schmidt, 2021. "Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-13, October.
    17. Anja Niemann & Vivienne Hillerich & Jürgen Wasem & Jan Dieris-Hirche & Laura Bottel & Magdalena Pape & Stephan Herpertz & Nina Timmesfeld & Jale Basten & Bert Theodor te Wildt & Klaus Wölfling & Raine, 2023. "Health Economic Evaluation of an Online-Based Motivational Program to Reduce Problematic Media Use and Promote Treatment Motivation for Internet Use Disorder—Results of the OMPRIS Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(24), pages 1-14, December.
    18. David Nuttall & David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2015. "Inter‐Provider Comparison Of Patient‐Reported Outcomes: Developing An Adjustment To Account For Differences In Patient Case Mix," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 41-54, January.
    19. K. Klose & S. Kreimeier & U. Tangermann & I. Aumann & K. Damm, 2016. "Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Marian Sorin Paveliu & Elena Olariu & Raluca Caplescu & Yemi Oluboyede & Ileana-Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Simona Ernu & Luke Vale, 2021. "Estimating an EQ-5D-3L Value Set for Romania Using Time Trade-Off," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Clinical dashboards; Patient-reported outcome measures; PROMs;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:hsgmed:202305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://med.unisg.ch/de/forschung/management-im-gesundheitswesen .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.