Features Constituting Actionable COVID-19 Dashboards: Descriptive Assessment and Expert Appraisal of 158 Public Web-Based COVID-19 Dashboards.
COVID-19
accessibility
communication
dashboard
expert
feature
health information management
internet
online tool
pandemic
performance measures
public health
public reporting of health care data
surveillance
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 02 2021
24 02 2021
Historique:
received:
13
11
2020
accepted:
31
01
2021
revised:
09
12
2020
pubmed:
13
2
2021
medline:
13
3
2021
entrez:
12
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the development of dashboards as dynamic, visual tools for communicating COVID-19 data has surged worldwide. Dashboards can inform decision-making and support behavior change. To do so, they must be actionable. The features that constitute an actionable dashboard in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been rigorously assessed. The aim of this study is to explore the characteristics of public web-based COVID-19 dashboards by assessing their purpose and users ("why"), content and data ("what"), and analyses and displays ("how" they communicate COVID-19 data), and ultimately to appraise the common features of highly actionable dashboards. We conducted a descriptive assessment and scoring using nominal group technique with an international panel of experts (n=17) on a global sample of COVID-19 dashboards in July 2020. The sequence of steps included multimethod sampling of dashboards; development and piloting of an assessment tool; data extraction and an initial round of actionability scoring; a workshop based on a preliminary analysis of the results; and reconsideration of actionability scores followed by joint determination of common features of highly actionable dashboards. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to explore the findings by research question. A total of 158 dashboards from 53 countries were assessed. Dashboards were predominately developed by government authorities (100/158, 63.0%) and were national (93/158, 58.9%) in scope. We found that only 20 of the 158 dashboards (12.7%) stated both their primary purpose and intended audience. Nearly all dashboards reported epidemiological indicators (155/158, 98.1%), followed by health system management indicators (85/158, 53.8%), whereas indicators on social and economic impact and behavioral insights were the least reported (7/158, 4.4% and 2/158, 1.3%, respectively). Approximately a quarter of the dashboards (39/158, 24.7%) did not report their data sources. The dashboards predominately reported time trends and disaggregated data by two geographic levels and by age and sex. The dashboards used an average of 2.2 types of displays (SD 0.86); these were mostly graphs and maps, followed by tables. To support data interpretation, color-coding was common (93/158, 89.4%), although only one-fifth of the dashboards (31/158, 19.6%) included text explaining the quality and meaning of the data. In total, 20/158 dashboards (12.7%) were appraised as highly actionable, and seven common features were identified between them. Actionable COVID-19 dashboards (1) know their audience and information needs; (2) manage the type, volume, and flow of displayed information; (3) report data sources and methods clearly; (4) link time trends to policy decisions; (5) provide data that are "close to home"; (6) break down the population into relevant subgroups; and (7) use storytelling and visual cues. COVID-19 dashboards are diverse in the why, what, and how by which they communicate insights on the pandemic and support data-driven decision-making. To leverage their full potential, dashboard developers should consider adopting the seven actionability features identified.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the development of dashboards as dynamic, visual tools for communicating COVID-19 data has surged worldwide. Dashboards can inform decision-making and support behavior change. To do so, they must be actionable. The features that constitute an actionable dashboard in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been rigorously assessed.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to explore the characteristics of public web-based COVID-19 dashboards by assessing their purpose and users ("why"), content and data ("what"), and analyses and displays ("how" they communicate COVID-19 data), and ultimately to appraise the common features of highly actionable dashboards.
METHODS
We conducted a descriptive assessment and scoring using nominal group technique with an international panel of experts (n=17) on a global sample of COVID-19 dashboards in July 2020. The sequence of steps included multimethod sampling of dashboards; development and piloting of an assessment tool; data extraction and an initial round of actionability scoring; a workshop based on a preliminary analysis of the results; and reconsideration of actionability scores followed by joint determination of common features of highly actionable dashboards. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to explore the findings by research question.
RESULTS
A total of 158 dashboards from 53 countries were assessed. Dashboards were predominately developed by government authorities (100/158, 63.0%) and were national (93/158, 58.9%) in scope. We found that only 20 of the 158 dashboards (12.7%) stated both their primary purpose and intended audience. Nearly all dashboards reported epidemiological indicators (155/158, 98.1%), followed by health system management indicators (85/158, 53.8%), whereas indicators on social and economic impact and behavioral insights were the least reported (7/158, 4.4% and 2/158, 1.3%, respectively). Approximately a quarter of the dashboards (39/158, 24.7%) did not report their data sources. The dashboards predominately reported time trends and disaggregated data by two geographic levels and by age and sex. The dashboards used an average of 2.2 types of displays (SD 0.86); these were mostly graphs and maps, followed by tables. To support data interpretation, color-coding was common (93/158, 89.4%), although only one-fifth of the dashboards (31/158, 19.6%) included text explaining the quality and meaning of the data. In total, 20/158 dashboards (12.7%) were appraised as highly actionable, and seven common features were identified between them. Actionable COVID-19 dashboards (1) know their audience and information needs; (2) manage the type, volume, and flow of displayed information; (3) report data sources and methods clearly; (4) link time trends to policy decisions; (5) provide data that are "close to home"; (6) break down the population into relevant subgroups; and (7) use storytelling and visual cues.
CONCLUSIONS
COVID-19 dashboards are diverse in the why, what, and how by which they communicate insights on the pandemic and support data-driven decision-making. To leverage their full potential, dashboard developers should consider adopting the seven actionability features identified.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33577467
pii: v23i2e25682
doi: 10.2196/25682
pmc: PMC7906125
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e25682Informations de copyright
©Damir Ivanković, Erica Barbazza, Véronique Bos, Óscar Brito Fernandes, Kendall Jamieson Gilmore, Tessa Jansen, Pinar Kara, Nicolas Larrain, Shan Lu, Bernardo Meza-Torres, Joko Mulyanto, Mircha Poldrugovac, Alexandru Rotar, Sophie Wang, Claire Willmington, Yuanhang Yang, Zhamin Yelgezekova, Sara Allin, Niek Klazinga, Dionne Kringos. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 24.02.2021.
Références
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Dec;27(12):1000-1007
pubmed: 29950323
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan;97:98-108
pubmed: 27919400
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Apr 04;6(8):431-435
pubmed: 28812842
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 19;19(6):e218
pubmed: 28630033
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jan;99(1):36-43
pubmed: 26277826
Health Secur. 2020 Jan;18(S1):S14-S22
pubmed: 32004129
Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Apr;16 Suppl 1:i57-63
pubmed: 15059988
Acta Inform Med. 2015 Oct;23(5):317-21
pubmed: 26635442
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Apr 13;12(2):e8
pubmed: 20439252
Med Care. 2003 Jan;41(1 Suppl):I30-8
pubmed: 12544814
BMJ. 2020 Sep 1;370:m3367
pubmed: 32873550
Am J Public Health. 1984 Sep;74(9):979-83
pubmed: 6380323
Pan Afr Med J. 2017 Jun 22;27(Suppl 3):22
pubmed: 29296157
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 16;368(20):1857-9
pubmed: 23593978
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e54149
pubmed: 23408936
Med Care Res Rev. 2010 Jun;67(3):275-93
pubmed: 20093399
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 15;164(6):435-41
pubmed: 26903136
Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Apr;64(2):169-90
pubmed: 17406019
Health Res Policy Syst. 2014 Jan 09;12:1
pubmed: 24405849
Health Policy. 2009 Apr;90(1):94-103
pubmed: 18829129
Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Dec;13(6):433-8
pubmed: 11769744
Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:413-33
pubmed: 12428034
Am J Public Health. 1972 Mar;62(3):337-42
pubmed: 5011164
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
pubmed: 7640549
Health Serv Res. 2016 Jun;51 Suppl 2:1159-66
pubmed: 27120996
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
Acad Med. 2019 Jun;94(6):747-748
pubmed: 31136339
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Jul 14;18(1):80
pubmed: 32664985