Perceived value and stakeholder experience of a dedicated allied health professions informatics role in a specialist cancer centre: a mixed-methods service evaluation survey
- 1The Royal Marsden NHS
Abstract
BackgroundDedicated allied health professions (AHP) informatics posts remain rare and largely unevaluated: one NHS trust in ten reports a formal AHP informatics lead.
ObjectivesTo evaluate stakeholder-perceived value and experience of a dedicated AHP Information Officer (AHPIO) role supporting an organisation-wide electronic health record (EHR), and to derive a working framework of the roles practice.
MethodsCross-sectional online survey within a registered service evaluation at a specialist cancer centre in England. A purposive census of 40 stakeholders (clinical and operational AHP staff, digital champions and EHR programme colleagues) rated six agreement items with four free-text questions. Analysis led with distributions, medians and Wilson intervals; inference was exploratory; free-text coding is fully audit-trailed.
ResultsTwenty-seven stakeholders responded (68%). Five items sat at a ceiling (medians 4 to 5; agreement 95% to 100%); all 25 answering the overall item agreed the role adds value, 80% strongly. Data and reporting access was the outlier (median 3.0; 52% neutral or below; agreement 48%, 95% CI 28% to 68%), ranking below every other item (Friedman chi-squared 36.3, df 5, 20 complete cases; Holm-adjusted post-hoc comparisons, rank-biserial -0.73 to -1.00). Nine themes located value in brokerage and routing (18/26), concrete outcome accounts (16/26) and a clinician who understands AHP work (12/26).
ConclusionsStakeholders located the roles value in brokerage, clinical-digital translation, representation and outcome response, resting on a named trusted contact; self-service data is the part-built pillar and development priority. The framework and method offer a replicable template for evaluating AHP informatics roles.
Related
- A Novel Informatics-Driven Model for Proactive Radiation Safety Management: Lessons from a Tumor Specialist Hospital in China.
- Development and validation of a digital learning resource quality evaluation framework: a mixed-methods study in health professions education
- Symbolic ableism in health professions education: development and initial psychometric evaluation of the German symbolic ableism scale.
- Evaluation of chatbot and specialist knowledge on pediatric sedation and general anesthesia: a comparative analysis.
- Healthcare utilization in patients with spinal disorders referred for specialist evaluation in Norway: an observational register-based cohort study.
BibTeX
@misc{bayquen2026perceived,
title = {{Perceived value and stakeholder experience of a dedicated allied health professions informatics role in a specialist cancer centre: a mixed-methods service evaluation survey}},
author = {D. D. A. Bayquen},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.11.26362711},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362711v1},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Perceived value and stakeholder experience of a dedicated allied health professions informatics role in a specialist cancer centre: a mixed-methods service evaluation survey
AU - D. D. A. Bayquen
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/11
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.11.26362711
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362711v1
AB - BackgroundDedicated allied health professions (AHP) informatics posts remain rare and largely unevaluated: one NHS trust in ten reports a formal AHP informatics lead. ObjectivesTo evaluate stakeholder-perceived value and experience of a dedicated AHP Information Officer (AHPIO) role supporting an organisation-wide electronic health record (EHR), and to derive a working framework of the roles practice. MethodsCross-sectional online survey within a registered service evaluation at a specialist cancer centre in England. A purposive census of 40 stakeholders (clinical and operational AHP staff, digital champions and EHR programme colleagues) rated six agreement items with four free-text questions. Analysis led with distributions, medians and Wilson intervals; inference was exploratory; free-text coding is fully audit-trailed. ResultsTwenty-seven stakeholders responded (68%). Five items sat at a ceiling (medians 4 to 5; agreement 95% to 100%); all 25 answering the overall item agreed the role adds value, 80% strongly. Data and reporting access was the outlier (median 3.0; 52% neutral or below; agreement 48%, 95% CI 28% to 68%), ranking below every other item (Friedman chi-squared 36.3, df 5, 20 complete cases; Holm-adjusted post-hoc comparisons, rank-biserial -0.73 to -1.00). Nine themes located value in brokerage and routing (18/26), concrete outcome accounts (16/26) and a clinician who understands AHP work (12/26). ConclusionsStakeholders located the roles value in brokerage, clinical-digital translation, representation and outcome response, resting on a named trusted contact; self-service data is the part-built pillar and development priority. The framework and method offer a replicable template for evaluating AHP informatics roles.
ER -