Dataset Information

The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the use and utility of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research since 2005 and to determine if any particular feature of studies found led to greater data acquisition.

Design

PRISMA compliant systematic review.

Participants

An extensive literature search was performed of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, psychINFO, BNI, AMED, HMIC and Health business elite databases from January 2005 to January 2013 using terms 'Freedom of information', 'Freedom of information act' and 'Freedom of information act 2000'. Papers were considered for publication if they described utilising the UK Freedom of information act to gather data for healthcare research. 16 articles met these criteria.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Primary outcome was the number and characteristics of studies utilising the Freedom of Information Act to collect the data for healthcare research. Secondary outcome measures were any features that improved data acquisition rates (including to whom the request was made, the number of questions asked per request, etc.)

Results

16 articles described utilising the Freedom of Information Act for healthcare research, and these investigated a broad range of topics. The median number of requests made was 86 (range 1-172), the total number of requests was 1732. A total of 15 817 pieces of data were retrieved by all studies. The amount of data collected was defined as the number of questions asked multiplied by the number of full responses. A median of five questions were asked per study (range 5-6.5) and the overall response rate was 86%. The National Health Service litigation authority responded to 100% of requests, while Primary Care Trusts had the lowest response rate of 81% for healthcare bodies. A positive correlation between number of requests made and data obtained (0.508, p<0.05) and number of requests made and increased response rate (0.737, p<0.01), both reached the statistical significance.

Conclusions

Researchers should make greater use of the Act to access the information they need that is not otherwise disclosed. We discuss the issues with the research utilising the Act and how future research of this type could be optimised.

SUBMITTER: Fowler AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3845048 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review.

Fowler Alexander J AJ Agha Riaz A RA Camm Christian F CF Littlejohns Peter P

BMJ open 20131127 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the use and utility of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research since 2005 and to determine if any particular feature of studies found led to greater data acquisition.<h4>Design</h4>PRISMA compliant systematic review.<h4>Participants</h4>An extensive literature search was performed of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, psychINFO, BNI, AMED, HMIC and Health business elite databases from January 2005 to January 2013 using terms 'Freedom of information', 'Free ...[more]

PMID: 24285626

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides access to unreleased government records that can be used to enhance the transparency and integrity of biomedical research. We characterized FOIA requests to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including request outcomes, processing times, backlogs, and costs.MethodsUsing HHS FOIA annual reports, we extracted data on the number of FOIA requests received and processed by HHS agencies between 2008 and 2017, as well as request outcomes. Processing times were reported in three time increments, < 1–20, 21–60, or 61+ days, and trends in backlog status were also described. Information about costs and fees collected were aggregated.ResultsBetween 2008 and 2017, 69.6% of 530,094 HHS FOIA requests were received by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), 18.9% by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 11.6% by all other HHS agencies. During this period, CMS processed 374,728 requests, FDA 114,938, and other HHS agencies 61,890. CMS and FDA reduced backlogged requests by 9396 (89.7%) and 4289 (65.3%), respectively, leaving backlogs of 1081 and 2279 requests at the end of 2017. CMS fully or partially granted 60.3% of requests whereas FDA fully or partially granted 72.4%. Of all requests to CMS, 82.0% were considered simple and 18.0% complex; 82.2% of simple requests and 54.9% of complex requests were processed in 20?days, and 5.6% and 29.9% were processed in 61+ days. In contrast, 60.2% of requests to FDA were considered simple and 39.8% complex; 28.8% of simple requests and 9.0% of complex requests were processed in 20?days, and 58.3% and 81.5% were processed in 61+ days. The costs to HHS associated with FOIA requests totaled $446.4 million ($809 per processed request), increasing from $28.1 million ($423 per request) in 2008 to $53.3 million ($1544 per request) in 2017. In total, HHS collected $8.5 million in fees (1.9% of total costs).ConclusionsFOIA is frequently used to obtain information about HHS and its agencies. With growing costs, minimal fees collected, and lengthy processing times, HHS agencies’ FOIA programs might be made more efficient through greater proactive record disclosure.

Project description:ObjectivesA key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers' individual capacities to conduct research.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies.Data sources11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened.Eligibility criteriaWe included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis.ResultsThe titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the 'Research Spider' tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research.ConclusionsCapacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies.Prospero registration numberCRD42019122310.

Project description:IntroductionThe global development agenda reflects greater attention to ending child marriage and supporting adolescent girls than ever before. Limited understandings of the evidence base on child marriage, however, make it challenging to assess gaps in the literature and inform policy and programming to respond to the needs of adolescent girls. The goal of this project is to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise the global evidence on child marriage.Methods and analysisWe will include articles with a thematic focus on child marriage from all geographic settings, two decades of research (2000-2019) and in four languages (English, Spanish, French and Portuguese). We will search 18 electronic academic databases (7 in English and 4 each in French, Spanish and Portuguese, with 1 overlapping database) and for the grey literature, conduct targeted hand-searches of organisations engaged in work to prevent child marriage. The databases for studies in English are PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Popline, Web of Science and Cochrane Library; for studies in French, the databases will be DialNet, Directory of Open Access Journals, Science Direct and Biblioteca CCG-IBT database; in Spanish, DialNet, La Biblioteca Científica Electrónica en Línea, Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico and Jstor and in Portuguese, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde, Biblioteca Científica Eletrônica On-line and Biblioteca Digital Brasileira de Teses e Dissertações. We will also review reference lists of select articles and seek input from key authors, field practitioners and participants in international convenings. We will collect and analyse data on publication characteristics, including type of document, institutional affiliation, publication year, language, focus country and region, study objective, specific focus, research method, key findings and recommendations of the material offered for future work. The database searches for publications in English were conducted in January 2020 and we plan to complete the searches in French, Spanish and Portuguese in early 2021.Ethics and disseminationAs a systematic review of already-published data, this study does not raise ethical or safety concerns. The authors plan to publish the results of the scoping review in a relevant international journal as well as present the results widely following publication. Building on this foundational work, the authors plan to conduct analyses that make use of the rich data.Registration detailsThe study design adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Our protocol was registered with Open Science Framework on 14 January 2020 (https://osf.io/awh8v).

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically categorise cancer research investment awarded to United Kingdom (UK) institutions in the period 2000-2013 and to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLDs).DesignSystematic analysis of all open-access data.Setting and participantsPublic and philanthropic funding to all UK cancer research institutions, 2000-2013.Main outcome measuresNumber and financial value of cancer research investments reported in 2013 UK pounds (UK£). Mortality, DALYs and YLDs data were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease Study. A compound metric was adapted to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, DALYs and YLDs.ResultsWe identified 4299 funded studies with a total research investment of £2.4 billion. The highest fundings by anatomical sites were haematological, breast, prostate, colorectal and ovarian cancers. Relative to disease burden as determined by a compound metric combining mortality, DALYs and YLDs, gender-specific cancers were found to be highest funded-the five sites that received the most funding were prostate, ovarian, breast, mesothelioma and testicular cancer; the least well-funded sites were liver, thyroid, lung, upper gastrointestinal (GI) and bladder. Preclinical science accounted for 66.2% of award numbers and 62.2% of all funding. The top five areas of primary research focus by funding were pathogenesis, drug therapy, diagnostic, screening and monitoring, women's health and immunology. The largest individual funder was the Medical Research Council. In combination, the five lowest funded site-specific cancers relative to disease burden account for 47.9%, 44.3% and 20.4% of worldwide cancer mortality, DALYs and YLDs.ConclusionsResearch funding for cancer is not allocated according to relative disease burden. These findings are in line with earlier published studies. Funding agencies and industry should openly document their research investments to improve better targeting of research investment.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing consensus on the importance of identifying age-related inequities in the receipt of public health and healthcare interventions, but concerns regarding conceptual and methodological rigour in this area of research. Establishing age inequity in receipt requires evidence of a difference that is not an artefact of poor measurement of need or receipt; is not warranted on the grounds of patient preference or clinical safety; and is judged to be unfair.MethodA systematic, thematic literature review was undertaken with the objective of characterising recent research approaches. Studies were eligible if the population was in a country within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and analyses included an explicit focus on age-related patterns of healthcare receipt including those 60 years or older. A structured extraction template was applied. Extracted material was synthesised in thematic memos. A set of categorical codes were then defined and applied to produce summary counts across key dimensions. This process was iterative to allow reconciliation of discrepancies and ensure reliability.ResultsForty nine studies met the eligibility criteria. A wide variety of concepts, terms and methodologies were used across these studies. Thirty five studies employed multivariable techniques to produce adjusted receipt-need ratios, though few clearly articulated their rationale, indicating the need for great conceptual clarity. Eighteen studies made reference to patient preference as a relevant consideration, but just one incorporated any kind of adjustment for this factor. Twenty five studies discussed effectiveness among older adults, with fourteen raising the possibility of differential effectiveness, and one differential cost-effectiveness, by age. Just three studies made explicit reference to the ethical nature of healthcare resource allocation by age. While many authors presented suitably cautious conclusions, some appeared to over-stretch their findings concluding that observed differences were 'inequitable'. Limitations include possible biases in the retrieved material due to inconsistent database indexing and a focus on OECD country populations and studies with English titles.ConclusionsCaution is needed among clinicians and other evidence-users in accepting claims of healthcare 'ageism' in some published papers. Principles for improved research practice are proposed.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix.Methods and findingsTwo independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched.ConclusionsThe measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic identification of evidence in health policy can be time-consuming and challenging. This study examines three questions pertaining to systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy, in order to identify the most efficient search methods: (1) What percentage of the primary studies selected for inclusion in the reviews originated in scholarly as opposed to gray literature? (2) How much of the primary scholarly literature in this topic area is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE? (3) Which databases index the greatest number of primary studies not indexed in PubMed, and are these databases searched consistently across systematic reviews?MethodsWe identified systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy and explored their search methods and citations. We determined the percentage of scholarly vs. gray literature cited, the most frequently cited journals, and whether each primary study was indexed in PubMed. We searched 21 databases for all primary study articles not indexed in PubMed to determine which database(s) indexed the highest number of these relevant articles.ResultsIn total, 21 systematic reviews were identified. Ten of the 21 systematic reviews reported searching gray literature, and 12 reviews ultimately included gray literature in their analyses. Scholarly articles accounted for 577 of the 649 total primary study papers. Of these, 495 (76%) were indexed in PubMed. Google Scholar retrieved the highest number of the remaining 82 non-PubMed scholarly articles, followed by Scopus and EconLit. The Journal of the American Dietetic Association was the most-cited journal.ConclusionsResearchers can maximize search efficiency by searching a small yet targeted selection of both scholarly and gray literature resources. A highly sensitive search of PubMed and those databases that index the greatest number of relevant articles not indexed in PubMed, namely multidisciplinary and economics databases, could save considerable time and effort. When combined with a gray literature search and additional search methods, including cited reference searching and consulting with experts, this approach could help maintain broad retrieval of relevant studies while improving search efficiency. Findings also have implications for designing specialized databases for public health research.

Dataset Information

The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review.

Objectives

Design

Participants

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets