bugGNU Health - Bugs: bug #46665, sex should not be required

 
 

You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.

bug #46665: sex should not be required

Submitter:  Cédric Krier <cedk>
Submitted:  Fri 11 Dec 2015 04:23:12 AM UTC
   
 
Category:  Functionality Severity:  3 - Normal
Item Group:  None Status:  Works For Me
Privacy:  Public Assigned to:  None
Open/Closed:  Closed Release:  None
Module:  health Component:  None

Jump to the original submission

Tue 15 Dec 2015 11:05:21 AM UTC, comment #8: 

I find this design very cumbersome when adding just a value to the selection simple, efficient and error prone.

Cédric Krier <cedk>
Tue 15 Dec 2015 10:48:39 AM UTC, comment #7: 

Not, because the already existing (None,'') will be available only when the boolan flag "Needs review" is set (making the gender field not required at that point), and that's where it becomes a deliberated, thought action from the operator.

Luis Falcon <meanmicio>
Group administrator
Tue 15 Dec 2015 10:03:24 AM UTC, comment #6: 

This goes against your previous statement that said the choice of the sex value should be conscientious. So if None is the default then it is no more a conscientious value that why I propose to add a Unknown value which is not the default and could be used when the sex is required.

Cédric Krier <cedk>
Tue 15 Dec 2015 09:30:24 AM UTC, comment #5: 

We already have the (None,'') option that would be -nearly- equivalent to 'Unknown', that would be available and default when the required state is not set.

PS: I admit that there is always a tradeoff in usuability and data quality, and finding the balance is not always trivial.

Luis Falcon <meanmicio>
Group administrator
Mon 14 Dec 2015 08:15:21 PM UTC, comment #4: 

I don't see how having two fields will improve the quality.
Setting the field to 'Unknown' is as conscious as setting it to Male or Female.

Cédric Krier <cedk>
Mon 14 Dec 2015 06:54:23 PM UTC, comment #3: 

While semantically equivalent, setting the boolean flag requires a deliberate, conscious action from the operator, that detects an anomaly. This minimizes human error, and restricts the values set of the field.

A more generic "Needs review" boolean, could be of better use. When True, it removes the readonly state of gender and other fields that might need to be reviewed.

It's a possible solution to improve the quality of records.

Luis Falcon <meanmicio>
Group administrator
Sun 13 Dec 2015 08:55:16 AM UTC, comment #2: 

The boolean proposal is semantically the same as mine to add a new option "Unknown" except that my solution doesn't add an extra field which should be tested all over the code before using the sex field.

Cédric Krier <cedk>
Sat 12 Dec 2015 11:21:22 AM UTC, comment #1: 

Although it can happen, in daily, interactive operation is statistically unremarkable. Most demographics are initially taken and reviewed in presence of the person, or automatically filled in at the moment of birth.

We should not put an option "Unknown", since it could lead to input errors and it clutters the selection option.

The scenario where we could not have the value is when doing batch input of demographic data coming from other system, and the value was not set at origin (because the field was not required ;-) ).

What we could do, is having a boolean field "Unknown sex", and use states in the sex field, setting it to required whenever the "unknown sex" field is False.

Thoughts are most welcome.

Luis Falcon <meanmicio>
Group administrator
Fri 11 Dec 2015 04:23:12 AM UTC, original submission:  

I think it can happen that a user has to enter a party of type person but without knowing the sex of the person.
So I propose to not make the sex field required even for person or to create a fourth option "Unknown".

Cédric Krier <cedk>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

No files currently attached

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by meanmicio (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by cedk (Submitted the item)
  •  

    There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.

     

    Follow 2 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2016-03-02 meanmicio StatusNone Works For Me
        Open/ClosedOpen Closed

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.13-f8d8.
    Corresponding source code