Evaluating visual analytics for health informatics applications: a systematic review from the American Medical Informatics Association Visual Analytics Working Group Task Force on Evaluation.
MeSH terms
evaluation studies (V03.400)
review (V02.600.500)
Journal
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
ISSN: 1527-974X
Titre abrégé: J Am Med Inform Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9430800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2019
01 04 2019
Historique:
received:
10
10
2018
revised:
06
12
2018
accepted:
21
12
2018
entrez:
7
3
2019
pubmed:
7
3
2019
medline:
27
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This article reports results from a systematic literature review related to the evaluation of data visualizations and visual analytics technologies within the health informatics domain. The review aims to (1) characterize the variety of evaluation methods used within the health informatics community and (2) identify best practices. A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed searches were conducted in February 2017 using search terms representing key concepts of interest: health care settings, visualization, and evaluation. References were also screened for eligibility. Data were extracted from included studies and analyzed using a PICOS framework: Participants, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Design. After screening, 76 publications met the review criteria. Publications varied across all PICOS dimensions. The most common audience was healthcare providers (n = 43), and the most common data gathering methods were direct observation (n = 30) and surveys (n = 27). About half of the publications focused on static, concentrated views of data with visuals (n = 36). Evaluations were heterogeneous regarding setting and measurements used. When evaluating data visualizations and visual analytics technologies, a variety of approaches have been used. Usability measures were used most often in early (prototype) implementations, whereas clinical outcomes were most common in evaluations of operationally-deployed systems. These findings suggest opportunities for both (1) expanding evaluation practices, and (2) innovation with respect to evaluation methods for data visualizations and visual analytics technologies across health settings. Evaluation approaches are varied. New studies should adopt commonly reported metrics, context-appropriate study designs, and phased evaluation strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30840080
pii: 5320044
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy190
pmc: PMC7647177
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
314-323Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Nov 04;3(4):e101
pubmed: 26537656
IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2006 May-Jun;26(3):6-9
pubmed: 16711210
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2016 May-Jun;36(3):90-96
pubmed: 28113160
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Apr 1;25(4):428-434
pubmed: 29106585
JAMA. 1990 Mar 2;263(9):1265, 1269, 1272 passim
pubmed: 2304243
IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2009 Nov-Dec;15(6):921-8
pubmed: 19834155
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Mar;22(2):260-2
pubmed: 25814539
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Mar;22(2):330-9
pubmed: 25336597
Nat Genet. 2001 Dec;29(4):365-71
pubmed: 11726920
IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2009 May-Jun;29(3):16-7
pubmed: 19642611