Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 31:25:e42615.
doi: 10.2196/42615.

Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review

Rehan Syed #  1 , Rebekah Eden #  1 , Tendai Makasi  1 , Ignatius Chukwudi  1 , Azumah Mamudu  1 , Mostafa Kamalpour  1 , Dakshi Kapugama Geeganage  1 , Sareh Sadeghianasl  1 , Sander J J Leemans  2 , Kanika Goel  1 , Robert Andrews  1 , Moe Thandar Wynn  1 , Arthur Ter Hofstede  1 , Trina Myers  1
Affiliations

Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review

Rehan Syed et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: The promise of digital health is principally dependent on the ability to electronically capture data that can be analyzed to improve decision-making. However, the ability to effectively harness data has proven elusive, largely because of the quality of the data captured. Despite the importance of data quality (DQ), an agreed-upon DQ taxonomy evades literature. When consolidated frameworks are developed, the dimensions are often fragmented, without consideration of the interrelationships among the dimensions or their resultant impact.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a consolidated digital health DQ dimension and outcome (DQ-DO) framework to provide insights into 3 research questions: What are the dimensions of digital health DQ? How are the dimensions of digital health DQ related? and What are the impacts of digital health DQ?

Methods: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a developmental systematic literature review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature focusing on digital health DQ in predominately hospital settings. A total of 227 relevant articles were retrieved and inductively analyzed to identify digital health DQ dimensions and outcomes. The inductive analysis was performed through open coding, constant comparison, and card sorting with subject matter experts to identify digital health DQ dimensions and digital health DQ outcomes. Subsequently, a computer-assisted analysis was performed and verified by DQ experts to identify the interrelationships among the DQ dimensions and relationships between DQ dimensions and outcomes. The analysis resulted in the development of the DQ-DO framework.

Results: The digital health DQ-DO framework consists of 6 dimensions of DQ, namely accessibility, accuracy, completeness, consistency, contextual validity, and currency; interrelationships among the dimensions of digital health DQ, with consistency being the most influential dimension impacting all other digital health DQ dimensions; 5 digital health DQ outcomes, namely clinical, clinician, research-related, business process, and organizational outcomes; and relationships between the digital health DQ dimensions and DQ outcomes, with the consistency and accessibility dimensions impacting all DQ outcomes.

Conclusions: The DQ-DO framework developed in this study demonstrates the complexity of digital health DQ and the necessity for reducing digital health DQ issues. The framework further provides health care executives with holistic insights into DQ issues and resultant outcomes, which can help them prioritize which DQ-related problems to tackle first.

Keywords: data quality; digital health; eHealth; electronic health record; systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) inclusion process. EHR: electronic health record.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Analysis process. DQ: data quality.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Publications by year.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Interrelationships between the data quality (DQ) dimensions.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Consolidated digital health data quality dimension and outcome framework.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Duncan R, Eden R, Woods L, Wong I, Sullivan C. Synthesizing dimensions of digital maturity in hospitals: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Mar 30;24(3):e32994. doi: 10.2196/32994. https://www.jmir.org/2022/3/e32994/ v24i3e32994 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Scott I, Staib A, Sullivan C. Effects of eHealth on hospital practice: synthesis of the current literature. Aust Health Rev. 2018 Sep;42(5):568–78. doi: 10.1071/AH17255.AH17255 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rahimi K. Digital health and the elusive quest for cost savings. Lancet Digit Health. 2019 Jul;1(3):e108–9. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30056-1. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2589-7500(19)30056-1 S2589-7500(19)30056-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Scott I, Staib A, Sullivan C. The impacts of eHealth upon hospital practice: synthesis of the current literature. Deeble Institute for Health Policy Research. 2017. Oct 17, [2023-03-01]. https://ahha.asn.au/system/files/docs/publications/impacts_of_ehealth_20... .
    1. Zheng K, Abraham J, Novak LL, Reynolds TL, Gettinger A. A survey of the literature on unintended consequences associated with health information technology: 2014-2015. Yearb Med Inform. 2016 Nov 10;(1):13–29. doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-036. http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.15265/IY-2016-036 me2016-036 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types