ReviewDigital health
Umbrella review of healthcare dashboards: Applications, benefits, design, and challenges.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dashboards are tools that support decision-making by leveraging data, delivering precise and prompt information, and significantly aiding organizations in meeting their informational needs while improving data-driven decision-making. Objective: This study aims to synthesize the evidence on applications, benefits, design features, and challenges of healthcare dashboards through an umbrella review. Method: Four databases were searched systematically, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus, within the time frame of 2010 to 2024, with the final article search completed on 30 December 2024. The retrieved reviews were first appraised by applying the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. Following quality assessment and data extraction, the content was organized for synthesis into four analytical categories: applications, benefits, design features, and challenges. Data were further organized according to user groups and the two primary dashboard types (Clinical and Quality) in the tables to facilitate interpretation. Results: A total of 41 studies were included for data synthesis, with 73% rated as high quality. The majority of articles were from the United States and focused on the public health context. Across the included studies, 12 distinct applications, 9 key benefits, 6 design features, and 8 challenges related to healthcare dashboards were identified. Findings were structured to reflect differences and overlaps between clinical and quality dashboards, highlighting their specific roles in patient care versus organizational performance. Conclusion: Healthcare dashboards serve diverse applications across clinical and public health settings, offering benefits such as enhanced decision-making, improved efficiency, and increased adherence to evidence-based practices. However, the successful implementation of these systems depends on addressing persistent challenges related to data quality, integration, usability, and user engagement. Classifying dashboards into clinical and quality types provides a clearer framework for context-sensitive design, tailored implementation strategies, and improving their impact in healthcare systems.
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.