IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i2p192-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Information Technologies and Decision Support Systems for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response

Author

Listed:
  • Dena M. Bravata
  • Kathryn M. McDonald
  • Herbert Szeto
  • Wendy M. Smith
  • Chara Rydzak
  • Douglas K. Owens

Abstract

Objectives . The authors sought to develop a conceptual framework for evaluating whether existing information technologies and decision support systems (IT/DSSs) would assist the key decisions faced by clinicians and public health officials preparing for and responding to bioterrorism. Methods. They reviewed reports of natural and bioterrorism related infectious outbreaks, bioterrorism preparedness exercises, and advice from experts to identify the key decisions, tasks, and information needs of clinicians and public health officials during a bioterrorism response. The authors used task decomposition to identify the subtasks and data requirements of IT/DSSs designed to facilitate a bioterrorism response. They used the results of the task decomposition to develop evaluation criteria for IT/DSSs for bioterrorism preparedness. They then applied these evaluation criteria to 341 reports of 217 existing IT/DSSs that could be used to support a bioterrorism response. Main Results . In response to bioterrorism, clinicians must make decisions in 4 critical domains (diagnosis, management, prevention, and reporting to public health), and public health officials must make decisions in 4 other domains (interpretation of bioterrorism surveillance data, outbreak investigation, outbreak control, and communication). The time horizons and utility functions for these decisions differ. From the task decomposition, the authors identified critical subtasks for each of the 8 decisions. For example, interpretation of diagnostic tests is an important subtask of diagnostic decision making that requires an understanding of the tests’ sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, an evaluation criterion applied to reports of diagnostic IT/DSSs for bioterrorism asked whether the reports described the systems’ sensitivity and specificity. Of the 217 existing IT/DSSs that could be used to respond to bioterrorism, 79 studies evaluated 58 systems for at least 1 performance metric. Conclusions. The authors identified 8 key decisions that clinicians and public health officials must make in response to bioterrorism. When applying the evaluation system to 217 currently available IT/DSSs that could potentially support the decisions of clinicians and public health officials, the authors found that the literature provides little information about the accuracy of these systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Dena M. Bravata & Kathryn M. McDonald & Herbert Szeto & Wendy M. Smith & Chara Rydzak & Douglas K. Owens, 2004. "A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Information Technologies and Decision Support Systems for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 192-206, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:2:p:192-206
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04263254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04263254
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04263254?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caunhye, Aakil M. & Li, Mingzhe & Nie, Xiaofeng, 2015. "A location-allocation model for casualty response planning during catastrophic radiological incidents," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 32-44.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:2:p:192-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.