The Role of Government Policies in Interoperability Standards for Laboratory Information Systems: A Bibliometric Analysis Literature Review

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Dec 13, 2025
https://doi.org/10.71064/spu.amjr.2.3.2025.462
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): Special Issue - African Multidisciplinary Journal of Research (AMJR) - 2025

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Rufus Karanja Nyaga
Kisii University
Ruth Chweya
Kisii University
Ronald Keng’ara Tombe
Kisii University

Abstract

There are several benefits of interoperability in Laboratory Information Systems (LIS) in public health. They include enhanced data management, continuous data exchange, enhanced disease tracking, and better decision-making.   Although Policies like the Kenya Health Act, the Data Protection Act, and the Kenya Health Information Systems Interoperability Framework have been developed by the Kenyan government to support LIS integration, there are areas such as inadequate execution procedures, disjointed health information systems, inadequate funding, and privacy concerns that still hinder advancement in execution. The study's approach focuses on the role government policies play in guiding LIS interoperability standards. More so, it assesses international top practices and points out the policy gaps that exist in Kenya and emphasizes any evolving challenges. This research includes a bibliometric analysis and literature review of the government policies that influence LIS interoperability between 2016 and 2024. Based on 82 peer-reviewed articles indexed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed, we examine publication trends, influential authors and institutions, citation networks, and regional scope. The analysis is informed by Data Management Theory (DMT), which calls for governance models to shape organizations. According to the findings, relevant policies exist; however, implementation and funding remain inadequate. The findings suggest increased scholarly interest in LIS interoperability, as well as a gradual shift from technical-oriented literature to policy-related debates. Nevertheless, Africa is underrepresented in high-impact papers, albeit with considerable innovations on a field level. The results further indicate inadequate empirical assessments of policy impact, weak public-private partnerships, and a lack of long-term policy evaluations. Further research ought to focus on fruitful case studies of LIS integration, customizing international standards to the Kenyan setting, and investigating the use of emerging technologies, for example, AI and blockchain, to boost interoperability standards in public health healthcare laboratory systems.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Karanja Nyaga, R. ., Chweya, R. ., & Keng’ara Tombe, R. . (2025). The Role of Government Policies in Interoperability Standards for Laboratory Information Systems: A Bibliometric Analysis Literature Review . African Multidisciplinary Journal of Research, 2(3), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.71064/spu.amjr.2.3.2025.462

References

  1. Allen, K. (2023). Exploration of the implementation of an integrated electronic laboratory information management system on quality diagnostics service indicators at a county level public hospital in western Kenya (Capstone project). SIT Graduate Institute. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/capstones/3299
  2. Alonge, M. (n.d.). Advancing data interoperability in the U.S. healthcare system.
  3. Anzalone, A. J., Geary, C. R., Dai, R., Watanabe-Galloway, S., McClay, J. C., & Campbell, J. R. (2025). Lower electronic health record adoption and interoperability in rural versus urban physician participants: A cross-sectional analysis from the CMS quality payment program. BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-12168-5
  4. Bagyendera, M., Nabende, P., & Nabukenya, J. (2023). Critical factors influencing data use and utilization in health systems: A focus on data and interoperability standards for health information exchange (HIE) in Uganda’s health care system. Oxford Open Digital Health, 1, oqad015. https://doi.org/10.1093/oodh/oqad015
  5. Barasa, E. W., Manyara, A. M., Molyneux, S., & Tsofa, B. (2017). Recentralization within decentralization: County hospital autonomy under devolution in Kenya. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0182440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182440
  6. Christofidou, M., Lea, N., & Coorevits, P. (2021). A literature review on the GDPR, COVID-19 and the ethical considerations of data protection during a time of crisis. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 30(1), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1726512
  7. Chuma, K. G., & Ngoepe, M. (2024). Policy framework for integrating data interoperability at public hospitals in South Africa. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(15), 9200. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd9200
  8. Codd, E. F. (1990). The relational model for database management: Version 2. Addison-Wesley.
  9. Ejaz, U., & Gimah, M. (n.d.). Data governance and interoperability: Ensuring compliance and trust in LIMS integrations.
  10. Inau, E. T., Nalugala, R., Nandwa, W. M., Obwanda, F., Wachira, A., & Cartaxo, A. (2022). FAIR equivalency, regulatory framework and adoption potential of FAIR guidelines in health in Kenya. Data Intelligence, 4(4), 852–866. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00175
  11. Kansiime, E. P., Ondulo, J. M., & Odoyo, C. O. (2024). Navigating the interoperability landscape of electronic medical record systems in developing countries: A narrative literature review. Journal of Science, Innovation and Creativity, 3(2), Article 2.
  12. Loshin, D. (2010). Master data management. Morgan Kaufmann.
  13. Muinga, N., Magare, S., Monda, J., Kamau, O., Houston, S., Fraser, H., Powell, J., English, M., & Paton, C. (2018). Implementing an open-source electronic health record system in Kenyan health care facilities: Case study. JMIR Medical Informatics, 6(2), e8403. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.8403
  14. Musabi, A. G., & Kipkebut, A. K. (2024). Healthcare services interoperability in Kenya: Challenges and opportunities. E-Health Telecommunication Systems and Networks, 13(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.4236/etsn.2024.131001
  15. Nguyen, N. E. (n.d.). A case study investigating integration and interoperability of health information systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
  16. Nyangena, J., Rajgopal, R., Ombech, E. A., Oloo, E., Luchetu, H., Wambugu, S., Kamau, O., Nzioka, C., Gwer, S., & Ndiritu Ndirangu, M. (2021). Maturity assessment of Kenya’s health information system interoperability readiness. BMJ Health & Care Informatics, 28(1), e100241. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100241
  17. Nzarama, G. M., Mukabalisa, A., Marara, A. A., Sibomana, L., Perjons, E., & Johannesson, P. (2024). Interoperability of electronic health record systems in Rwandan healthcare system. Health Information Science and Systems, Article 179015375. https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/gcd:179015375
  18. Oluwole, O. G., Oosterwyk, C., Anderson, D., Adadey, S. M., Mnika, K., Manyisa, N., Yalcouye, A., Wonkam, E. T., Aboagye, E. T., Dia, Y., Uwibambe, E., Jonas, M., Priestley, R., Popel, K., Manyashe, T., de Cock, C., Nembaware, V., & Wonkam, A. (2022). The implementation of laboratory information management system in multi-site genetics study in Africa: The challenges and up-scaling opportunities. Journal of Molecular Pathology, 3(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmp3040022
  19. Rasmussen, S. A., Lindegren, M. L., Altman, L. K., & Iademarco, M. F. (n.d.). The consequences of silencing the “voice of CDC.” New England Journal of Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2501622
  20. Rich, S. N., Richards, V., Mavian, C., Rife Magalis, B., Grubaugh, N., Rasmussen, S. A., Dellicour, S., Vrancken, B., Carrington, C., Fisk-Hoffman, R., Danso-Odei, D., Chacreton, D., Shapiro, J., Seraphin, M. N., Hepp, C., Black, A., Dennis, A., Trovão, N. S., Vandamme, A.-M., … Prosperi, M. (2023). Application of phylodynamic tools to inform the public health response to COVID-19: Qualitative analysis of expert opinions. JMIR Formative Research, 7, e39409. https://doi.org/10.2196/39409
  21. Survey results: National health data infrastructure and governance. (2021, April 21). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/survey-results-national-health-data-infrastructure-and-governance_55d24b5d-en.html
  22. Turner, P., Rupali, P., Opintan, J. A., Jaoko, W., Feasey, N. A., Peacock, S. J., & Ashley, E. A. (2021). Laboratory informatics capacity for effective antimicrobial resistance surveillance in resource-limited settings. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 21(6), e170–e174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30835-5
  23. Vukovic, J., Ivankovic, D., Habl, C., & Dimnjakovic, J. (2022). Enablers and barriers to the secondary use of health data in Europe: General data protection regulation perspective. Archives of Public Health, 80(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-022-00866-7
  24. Wang, Y.-Y. R., Wang, R. Y., Ziad, M., & Lee, Y. W. (2001). Data quality. Springer.