Table 3.
Perceptions of the DHPMAT (5-point Likert scale)
| Element of the DHPMAT assessed | Average score |
|---|---|
|
1. Rationale & Methods |
3 |
|
i. The content is easy to understand |
4 |
|
ii. I know the reasons why the DHPMAT was developed |
3 |
|
iii. I know how the DHPMAT was developed |
2 |
|
iv. The rationale also addressed my country’s priorities |
3 |
|
v. The link to the WPRO Regional Strategy is important |
4 |
|
2. User Guide |
4 |
|
i. The instructions are easy to follow |
4 |
|
ii. The recommended way to use the DHPMAT is logical |
4 |
|
3. Country Digital Health Profile |
3 |
|
i. The content is accurate |
3 |
|
ii. The content is relevant and important |
4 |
|
iii. The content is complete |
3 |
|
4. Digital Health Maturity Assessment Tool |
3 |
|
1. The maturity assessment tool is easy to use |
3 |
|
ii. The 4 essential digital health foundations are logical |
3 |
|
iii. The attributes allocated to each foundation are correct |
3 |
|
iv. The 5 digital health maturity levels are logical |
3 |
|
v. The descriptors for each maturity level are logical |
3 |
|
vi. The ‘thought-provoking’ questions are useful |
4 |
|
vii. The ‘discussion’ points are useful |
4 |
|
viii. The ‘examples’ are appropriate |
3 |
|
5. General Perceptions |
3 |
|
i. The overall framework covers all aspects of digital health |
3 |
|
ii. The DHPMAT was easy to use |
3 |
|
iii. The DHPMAT is useful and will meet its objectives |
4 |
|
iv. I am already familiar with the recommended resources |
3 |
|
v. This is relevant and useful for country |
4 |