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.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a complex global public health crisis presenting clinical, organisational and system-wide challenges. Different research perspectives on health are needed in order to manage and monitor this crisis. Performance intelligence is an approach that emphasises the need for different research perspectives in supporting health systems' decision-makers to determine policies based on well-informed choices. In this paper, we present the viewpoint of the Innovative Training Network for Healthcare Performance Intelligence Professionals (HealthPros) on how performance intelligence can be used during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion: A lack of standardised information, paired with limited discussion and alignment between countries contribute to uncertainty in decision-making in all countries. Consequently, a plethora of different non-data-driven and uncoordinated approaches to address the outbreak are noted worldwide. Comparative health system research is needed to help countries shape their response models in social care, public health, primary care, hospital care and long-term care through the different phases of the pandemic. There is a need in each phase to compare context-specific bundles of measures where the impact on health outcomes can be modelled using targeted data and advanced statistical methods. Performance intelligence can be pursued to compare data, construct indicators and identify optimal strategies. Embracing a system perspective will allow countries to take coordinated strategic decisions while mitigating the risk of system collapse.A framework for the development and implementation of performance intelligence has been outlined by the HealthPros Network and is of pertinence. Health systems need better and more timely data to govern through a pandemic-induced transition period where tensions between care needs, demand and capacity are exceptionally high worldwide. Health systems are challenged to ensure essential levels of healthcare towards all patients, including those who need routine assistance.

IntroductionReported sex differences in the etiology, population prevalence, progression rates, and health outcomes of people with CKD may be explained by differences in health care.MethodsWe evaluated sex as the variable of interest in a health care–based study of adults (n=227,847) with at least one outpatient eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 measurement denoting probable CKD in Stockholm from 2009 to 2017. We calculated the odds ratios for diagnosis of CKD and provision of RASi and statins at inclusion, and hazard ratios for CKD diagnosis, visiting a nephrologist, or monitoring creatinine and albuminuria during follow-up.ResultsWe identified 227,847 subjects, of whom 126,289 were women (55%). At inclusion, women had lower odds of having received a diagnostic code for CKD and were less likely to have received RASi and statins, despite having guideline-recommended indications. In time-to-event analyses, women were less likely to have received a CKD diagnosis (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.45) and visited a nephrologist (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.48) regardless of disease severity, presence of albuminuria, or criteria for referral. Women were also less likely to undergo monitoring of creatinine or albuminuria, including those with diabetes or hypertension. These differences remained after adjustment for comorbidities, albuminuria, and highest educational achievement, and among subjects with confirmed CKD at retesting. Although in absolute terms all nephrology-care indicators gradually improved over time, the observed sex gap persisted.ConclusionsThere were profound sex differences in the detection, recognition, monitoring, referrals, and management of CKD. The disparity was also observed in people at high risk and among those who had guideline-recommended indications.

Introduction: Hypertension is considered an important public health issue. Inadequate disease management and non-adherence to antihypertensive medication may result in suboptimal clinical outcomes thereby imposing a financial burden on society. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a patient-tailored, pharmacist-led intervention program aimed to enhance adherence to antihypertensive medication in comparison with usual care.Materials and Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with 9-months follow-up among 170 patients using antihypertensive medication. Effect outcomes included self-reported adherence (MARS-5), beliefs about medicines (BMQ Concern and Necessity scales) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around the cost-differences and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were estimated.Results: There were no significant differences in costs or effects between the intervention program and usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with usual care was 0.27 at a willingness-to-pay value of 0 €/unit of effect gained. At a willingness-to-pay value of 20,000 €/unit of effect gained, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.70, 0.27, 0.64, 0.87, and 0.36 for the continuous MARS-5 score, dichotomized MARS-5 score, BMQ Concern scale, BMQ Necessity scale and QALYs, respectively.Discussion: In patients with hypertension, the patient-tailored, pharmacist-led intervention program to enhance medication adherence was not considered cost-effective as compared to usual care with regard to self-reported medication adherence, beliefs about medicines and QALYs.