ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2026
Design Practices for Data Dashboards in Health Care: Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relationship Between Urban Characteristics and Non-Communicable Diseases-Conceptual Framework of the HORUS Project.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- From Design to Accountable Impact for Data Dashboards in Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A Standardized Framework for Evaluating State Opioid Surveillance Dashboards: A Health Informatics Assessment.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth care dashboards have the potential to enhance understanding, decision-making, and communication. However, their design, implementation, and evaluation are often hindered by the absence of standardized guidelines. This scoping review synthesizes international evidence to identify common practices for health care dashboard design, providing a foundation for application in the Irish context.
objectiveThis study aimed to identify existing guidelines and common practices for health care dashboard design to inform future development and implementation within the Irish health care system.
methodsA scoping review using an evidence summary approach was conducted. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore (2014-2024) were searched. Practices were extracted and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and then grouped into 4 main pillars: approach (engagement of end users and stakeholders), content (data quality, effective insights, and presentation), behavior (usability and accessibility), and adoption (sustainability).
resultsFrom 1644 initially identified studies, 18 (1.1%) met the inclusion criteria. Most were hospital focused (13/18, 72.2%), with few community- or public-facing dashboards. Only 4 of 18 (22.2%) studies described structured guidelines; most implementations (14/18, 77.8%) were ad hoc. Common practices included user involvement, actionable metrics, data quality, usability, and workflow integration. Divergences were observed: hospitals prioritized clinical indicators, public dashboards emphasized transparency, and community dashboards were underrepresented. Conflicting findings included debate over interactivity vs static simplicity.
conclusionsDashboard design remains fragmented, with limited guidance for structured design or implementation. The 4 pillars provide a practical synthesis of best practices, highlighting pathways for evidence-informed, user-centered design. These pillars will inform future consensus building and co-design of health care dashboards in Ireland and can serve as a foundation for broader application in primary care, community, and public health settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.