BACKGROUND: Consumer health informatics (CHI) is an emerging field that utilizes technology to provide health information to enhance health-care decision making by the public. There is, however, no widely accepted or uniform definition of CHI. A consensus definition would be important for pedagogical reasons, to build capacity and to reduce confusion about what the discipline consists of. AIM: We undertook a systematic review of published definitions of CHI and evaluated them using five quality assessment criteria and measures of similarity. METHODS: Five databases were searched (Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Business Source Complete) resulting in 1101 citations. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Definitions were appraised using five criteria (with each scoring out of one): use of published citation, multi-disciplinarity, journal impact, definition comprehensibility, text readability. RESULTS: Most definitions scored low on citation (Mean ± SD: 0.22 ± 0.42), multi-disciplinarity (0.15 ± 0.28) and readability (0.04 ± 0.21) and somewhat higher on IF (0.35 ± 0.45) and definition comprehensibility (idea density) (0.87 ± 0.34) criteria. Overall, the quality of the published definitions was low 1.63 ± 0.80 (out of five). CONCLUSIONS: The definitions of CHI were variable in terms of the quality assessment criteria. This suggests the need for continued discussion amongst consumer health informaticians to develop a clear consensus definition about CHI.
BACKGROUND: Consumer health informatics (CHI) is an emerging field that utilizes technology to provide health information to enhance health-care decision making by the public. There is, however, no widely accepted or uniform definition of CHI. A consensus definition would be important for pedagogical reasons, to build capacity and to reduce confusion about what the discipline consists of. AIM: We undertook a systematic review of published definitions of CHI and evaluated them using five quality assessment criteria and measures of similarity. METHODS: Five databases were searched (Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Business Source Complete) resulting in 1101 citations. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Definitions were appraised using five criteria (with each scoring out of one): use of published citation, multi-disciplinarity, journal impact, definition comprehensibility, text readability. RESULTS: Most definitions scored low on citation (Mean ± SD: 0.22 ± 0.42), multi-disciplinarity (0.15 ± 0.28) and readability (0.04 ± 0.21) and somewhat higher on IF (0.35 ± 0.45) and definition comprehensibility (idea density) (0.87 ± 0.34) criteria. Overall, the quality of the published definitions was low 1.63 ± 0.80 (out of five). CONCLUSIONS: The definitions of CHI were variable in terms of the quality assessment criteria. This suggests the need for continued discussion amongst consumer health informaticians to develop a clear consensus definition about CHI.
Keywords:
Consumer; definitions; health informatics; medical informatics; systematic review
Authors: Rupa S Valdez; Thomas M Guterbock; Kara Fitzgibbon; Ishan C Williams; Claire A Wellbeloved-Stone; Jaime E Bears; Hannah K Menefee Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alexis V Chaet; Bijan Morshedi; Kristen J Wells; Laura E Barnes; Rupa Valdez Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Hannah K Menefee; Morgan J Thompson; Thomas M Guterbock; Ishan C Williams; Rupa S Valdez Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 5.428