Healthc Inform Res.  2020 Jul;26(3):229-237. 10.4258/hir.2020.26.3.229.

Building Consensus on the Priority-Setting for National Policies in Health Information Technology: A Delphi Survey

• Choi M
• Kim M
• Kim JA
• Chang H

• KMID: 2505264
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2020.26.3.229

Abstract

Objectives
With growing attention on the healthcare industry as a potential market for big data and artificial intelligence in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, countries around the world are introducing and developing various policies and projects related to health information technology (HIT). To assist prioritizing HIT topics in policy making, this study adopts the Delphi technique to garner expert opinions from various fields of health informatics.
Methods
Data were collected from November 2019 to February 2020 using the Delphi technique through two rounds of surveys administered via email. The Delphi panel consisted of 16 experts with a high level of experience in health informatics. They were from the Health Information Policy Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea, and the board of directors of the Korean Society of Medical Informatics. The experts were asked to assess the importance, urgency, and difficulty of HIT topics in three domains: technology, application, and infrastructure.
Results
Of the 40 topic items, a 100% agreement was reached for the importance of 6 items, including 2 items in technology, 1 item in application, and 3 items in infrastructure domains. Especially, Quadrant I of a 2×2 matrix showing high importance and high urgency included 7 items in the technology domain, 2 items in the application domain, and 13 items in the infrastructure domain.
Conclusions
Most items with high importance and urgency belonged to the infrastructure domain. The findings indicated that fostering an infrastructural environment should be polices with top priorities of HIT.

Keyword

Health Policy; Information Technology; Informatics; Medical Informatics; Delphi Technique

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Results of the second round of Delphi survey: Importance-Urgency Matrix.

Reference

References

1. Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Strategic report of smart healthcare devices and technology standards [Internet]. Cheongju, South Korea: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety;2018. [cited at 2020 July 11]. Available from: https://www.nifds.go.kr/brd/m_18/down.do?brd_id=80&seq=12448&data_tp=A&file_seq=1.

2. Australian Government Department of Health. National e-Health Strategy [Internet]. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health;2008. [cited at 2020 July 11]. Available from: https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/National+Ehealth+Strategy.

3. Park JW, Shim WH, Lee JS. A study for Promoting digital healthcare in Korea through an improved regulatory system. Informatiz Policy. 2018; 25(1):60–81.

4. Song YJ. The 4th Industrial Revolution and digital healthcare policies [Internet]. Daejeon, South Korea: Institute of Information and Communications Technology Planning and Evaluation;2018. [cited at 2020 July 11]. Available from: https://www.itfind.or.kr/WZIN/jugidong/1832/file3874377402637323357-183201.pdf.

5. Flores M, Glusman G, Brogaard K, Price ND, Hood L. P4 medicine: how systems medicine will transform the healthcare sector and society. Per Med. 2013; 10(6):565–76.

6. Kim YK. Recent trends and implications for digital healthcare [Internet]. Daejeon, South Korea: Institute of Information and Communications Technology Planning and Evaluation;2018. [cited at 2020 July 11]. Available from: https://www.itfind.or.kr/WZIN/jugidong/1846/file986680593057551481-184602.pdf.

7. Kim JK, Lee SJ. Strategies and implications for ICT-based healthcare industry in major countries [Internet]. Sejong, South Korea: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy;2016. [cited at 2020 July 11]. Available from: http://www.kiep.go.kr/sub/view.do?bbsId=global_econo&nttId=189741.

8. Scott RE, Mars M. Principles and framework for eHealth strategy development. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(7):e155.

9. World Health Organization. National eHealth Strategy Toolkit [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;2012. [cited at 2020 July 11]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75211/1/9789241548465_eng.pdf.

10. European Commission. In : 15th Meeting of the eHealth Network; Bucharest. 11–12 June 2019; [Internet]. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission;c2019. [cited at 2020 July 11]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/ehealth/events/ev_20190611_en.

11. Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(5):382–5.

12. Neumeier M. Access 2022: setting new goals for digital health in Canada. Can J Nurs Inform. 2019; 14(1/2):1–2.

13. Kim SJ, An KS. An empirical study on efficient fiscal management for PPP (Public-Private Partnership) projects by using Delphi methods. J Public Policy Gov. 2017; 11(3):67–99.

14. Rowe G, Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int J Forecast. 1999; 15(4):353–75.

15. Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007; 12(1):10.

16. Ludwig B. Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology. J Ext. 1997; 35(5):1–4.

17. Gordon TJ. The Delphi method. Glenn JC, Gordon, TJ, editors. Futures research methodology. New York (NY): American Council for the United Nations University;1994. p. 1–30.

18. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview (IL): Scott and Foresman;1975.

19. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001; 38(2):195–200.

20. Murry JW, Hammons JO. Delphi: a versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Rev High Educ. 1995; 18(4):423–36.

21. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(4):401–9.

22. Kim J, Kim H, Leem B, Yoon J. Analyzing the national medical service efficiency of OECD countries using DEA and malmquist productivity Index. J Korean Oper Res Manag Sci Soc. 2012; 37(4):125–38.

23. US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). Federal Health IT Strategic Plan 2020–2025 [Internet]. Washington (DC): ONC;c2020. [cited at 2020 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/topic/2020-2025-federal-health-it-strategic-plan.

24. Hersh W, Williamson J. Educating 10,000 informaticians by 2010: the AMIA 10×10 program. Int J Med Inform. 2007; 76(5–6):377–82.

25. Gibson CJ, Dixon BE, Abrams K. Convergent evolution of health information management and health informatics: a perspective on the future of information professionals in health care. Appl Clin Inform. 2015; 6(1):163–84.

26. Luna D, Almerares A, Mayan JC 3rd, Gonzalez Bernaldo de Quiros F, Otero C. Health informatics in developing countries: going beyond pilot practices to sustainable implementations: a review of the current challenges. Healthc Inform Res. 2014; 20(1):3–10.

27. Marc D, Butler-Henderson K, Dua P, Lalani K, Fenton SH. Global workforce trends in health informatics & information management. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019; 264:1273–77.

28. US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). Certification of Health IT [Internet]. Washington (DC): ONC;c2020. [cited at 2020 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/topic/certification-ehrs/certification-health-it.

29. EuroRec. Promoting the use of high-quality electronic health record systems [Internet]. Ghent, Belgium: Euro-Rec;c2020. [cited at 2020 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.eurorec.org.

30. Electronic Medical Record System Certification. The foundation of digital health care in Korea Electronic Medical Record System Certification [Internet]. Seoul, Korea: Korea Health Information Service;c2020. [cited at 2020 Jul 10]. Available from: http://emrcert.mohw.go.kr.