Moving towards open government data 2.0 in U.S. health agencies: Engaging data users and promoting use

Abstract

We trace the evolution of open government data (OGD) publication among U.S. health agencies to illustrate how OGD goals and benefits might be achieved. Our novel conceptual framework illustrates the implicit logic underlying OGD activities in the health domain and their anticipated impact on population health. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 diverse practitioners and policymakers from local, state, and federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations. Using a positive deviance approach, we identified innovative U.S. health agencies that were early OGD adopters. We analyzed transcripts using a grounded theory methodological approach to identify common themes. Results indicate that the OGD movement is marked by three major eras (pre-OGD early activities, Open Data 1.0, and Open Data 2.0), and U.S. health agencies are in different stages of evolution. Among innovative jurisdictions, OGD transitioned from an early focus on releasing large volumes of data to a more demand-driven approach to promote meaningful user engagement with data. Although engagement strategies could yield benefits, limited evidence exists on best practices for engaging diverse data users and many jurisdictions have not yet transitioned to this later phase. Our conceptual framework could be adapted for other domains to help visualize how successful OGD initiatives might unfold.

Keywords

Open government data user engagement health policy health data health information management

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Attard,

Orlandi,

Scerri,

, & Auer,

(2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399-418.

Bradley,

E.H.

Curry,

L.A.

Ramanadhan,

Rowe,

Nembhard,

I.M.

, & Krumholz,

H.M.

(2009). Research in action: Using positive deviance to improve quality of health care. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1-11.

Begany,

G.M.

, & Martin,

E.G.

(2017). An open health data engagement ecosystem model: Are facilitators the key to open data success? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 621-623.

Chan,

C.M.

(2013, January). From open data to open innovation strategies: Creating e-services using open government data. In 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 1890-1899.

Charalabidis,

Alexopoulos,

, & Loukis,

(2016). A taxonomy of open government data research areas and topics. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 41-63.

Charmaz,

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Charmaz,

(1996). Grounded theory. In Smith,

J.A.

Harré,

, & Van Langenhove,

, eds., Rethinking Methods in Psychology, London: SAGE Publications, Inc, pp. 27-19.

Corbin,

, & Strauss,

(2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Crain’s New York Business (2014). Crain’s Health Pulse Extra, January 8, 2014. New York, NY: Crain Communications, Inc.

10.

Felle,

(2016). Digital watchdogs? Data reporting and the news media’s traditional ‘fourth estate’ function. Journalism, 17(1), 85-96.

11.

Gagliardi,

Schina,

Sarcinella,

M.L.

Mangialardi,

Niglia,

, & Corallo,

(2017). Information and communication technologies and public participation: interactive maps and value added for citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 153-166.

12.

Gascó-Hernández,

Martin,

E.G.

Reggi,

Pyo,

, & Luna-Reyes,

L.F.

(2018). Promoting the use of open government data: Cases of training and engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 233-242.

13.

Graves,

, & Hendler,

(2013, June). Visualization tools for open government data. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, ACM, pp. 136-145.

14.

Gurin,

(2014). Open governments, open data: A new lever for transparency, citizen engagement, and economic growth. SAIS Review, XXXIV(1), 71-82.

15.

Hendler,

Holm,

Musialek,

, & Thomas,

(2012). US government linked open data: Semantic. data. gov. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(3), 25-31.

16.

Horrigan,

J.B.

Rainie,

, & Page,

(2015). Americans’ views on open government data. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/21/open-government-data/.

17.

Hossain,

M.A.

Dwivedi,

Y.K.

, & Rana,

N.P.

(2016). State-of-the-art in open data research: Insights from existing literature and a research agenda. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 14-40.

18.

Huijboom,

, & Van den Broek,

(2011). Open data: An international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice, 12(1), 4-16.

19.

Janssen,

Charalabidis,

, & Zuiderwijk,

(2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258-268.

20.

Kassen,

(2013). A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 508-513.

21.

Khayyat,

, & Bannister,

(2017). Towards a model for facilitating and enabling co-creation using open government data. Information Polity, 22(4), 211-231.

22.

Klaiman,

O’Connell,

, & Stoto,

(2013). Local health department public vaccination clinic success during 2009 pH1N1. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 19(4), E20-E26.

23.

Lassinantti,

Ståhlbröst,

, & Runardotter,

(2019). Relevant social groups for open data use and engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 98-111.

24.

Linders,

(2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446-454.

25.

Luna-Reyes,

L.F.

, & Najafabadi,

M.M.

(2019). The US open data initiative: The road ahead. Information Polity, (Preprint), 1-20.

26.

Martin,

E.G.

, & Begany,

G.M.

(2017). Opening government health data to the public: benefits, challenges, and lessons learned from early innovators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(2), 345-351.

27.

Martin,

E.G.

Helbig,

, & Birkhead,

G.S.

(2015). Opening health data: What do researchers want? Early experiences with New York’s open health data platform. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 21(5), E1-7.

28.

Martin,

E.G.

Helbig,

, & Shah,

N.R.

(2014). Liberating data to transform health care New York’s open data experience. JAMA, 311(24), 2481-2482.

29.

Martin,

E.G.

Law,

Ran,

Helbig,

, & Birkhead,

G.S.

(2017). Evaluating the quality and usability of open data for public health research: A systematic review of data offerings on 3 open data platforms. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 23(4), e5-e13.

30.

Martin,

E.G.

Shah,

N.R.

, & Birkhead,

G.S.

(2018). Unlocking the power of open health data: A checklist to improve value and promote use. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(1), 81-84.

31.

Maxwell,

J.A.

(2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

32.

McDermott,

(2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401-413.

33.

National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (2017). Recommendations to maximize the value of HealthData.gov. Retrieved from https://ncvhs.hhs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NCVHS-HealthDataDotGov-Report-with-cover-letter.pdf.

34.

Obama,

(2009). Transparency and Open Government: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment.

35.

Obama,

(2013). Executive Order: Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government-.

36.

O’Reilly,

(2010). Government as a Platform. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(1), 13-40.

37.

Patton,

M.Q.

(1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5, Part II), 1189-1208.

38.

Peled,

(2011). When transparency and collaboration collide: The USA open data program. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2085-2094.

39.

Rogers,

E.M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5

{}^{\text{th}}

Ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

40.

Ruijer,

E.H.

, & Martinius,

(2017). Researching the democratic impact of open government data: A systematic literature review. Information Polity, 22(4), 233-250.

41.

Safarov,

Meijer,

, & Grimmelikhuijsen,

(2017). Utilization of open government data: A systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Information Polity, 22(1), 1-24.

42.

Strauss,

, & Corbin,

(1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 17, 273-85.

43.

Susha,

Grönlund,

Å.

, & Janssen,

(2015a). Driving factors of service innovation using open government data: An exploratory study of entrepreneurs in two countries. Information Polity, 20(1), 19-34.

44.

Susha,

Grönlund,

, & Janssen,

(2015b). Organizational measures to stimulate user engagement with open data. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(2), 181-206.

45.

Thorsby,

Stowers,

G.N.

Wolslegel,

, & Tumbuan,

(2017). Understanding the content and features of open data portals in American cities. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 53-61.

46.

Trochim,

W.M.K.

, & Donnelly,

J.P.

(2008). The research methods knowledgebase (3rd Ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

47.

U.S. News & World Report (2016). U.S. News and RowdMap, Inc. Team Up to Help Patients Make More Informed Health Care Decisions. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-room/2016/01/19/us-news-and-rowdmap-inc-team-up-to-help-patients-make-more-informed-health-care-decisions.

48.

Weerakkody,

Irani,

Kapoor,

Sivarajah,

, & Dwivedi,

Y.K.

(2017). Open data and its usability: An empirical view from the Citizen’s perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 285-300.

49.

Wirtz,

B.W.

Weyerer,

J.C.

, & Rösch,

(2019). Open government and citizen participation: An empirical analysis of citizen expectancy towards open government data. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(3), 566-586.

50.

Zhu,

(2017). The failure of an early episode in the open government data movement: A historical case study. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 256-269.

51.

Zuiderwijk,

Janssen,

, & Dwivedi,

Y.K.

(2015). Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: Drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 429-440.

52.

Zuiderwijk,

Helbig,

Gil-Garcia,

J.R.

, & Janssen,

(2014). Special issue on innovation through open data: A review of the state-of-the-art and an emerging research agenda. Guest Editors’ Introduction. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 1-2.

53.

Zuiderwijk,

Janssen,

, & Jeffery,

(2013, May). Towards an e-infrastructure to support the provision and use of open data. In Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, p. 259.

54.

Zuiderwijk,

Janssen,

van de Kaa,

, & Poulis,

(2016). The wicked problem of commercial value creation in open data ecosystems: Policy guidelines for governments. Information Polity, 21(3), 223-236.

55.

Zuiderwijk,

Shinde,

, & Janssen,

(2018). Investigating the attainment of open government data objectives: Is there a mismatch between objectives and results? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1-28. doi: 10.1177/0020852317739115.