Dataset Information

Current use and costs of electronic health records for clinical trial research: a descriptive study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Electronic health records (EHRs) may support randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe the current use and costs of EHRs in RCTs, with a focus on recruitment and outcome assessment. METHODS:This descriptive study was based on a PubMed search of RCTs published since 2000 that evaluated any medical intervention with the use of EHRs. Cost information was obtained from RCT investigators who used EHR infrastructures for recruitment or outcome measurement but did not explore EHR technology itself. RESULTS:We identified 189 RCTs, most of which (153 [81.0%]) were carried out in North America and were published recently (median year 2012 [interquartile range 2009-2014]). Seventeen RCTs (9.0%) involving a median of 732 (interquartile range 73-2513) patients explored interventions not related to EHRs, including quality improvement, screening programs, and collaborative care and disease management interventions. In these trials, EHRs were used for recruitment (14 [82%]) and outcome measurement (15 [88%]). Overall, in most of the trials (158 [83.6%]), the outcome (including many of the most patient-relevant clinical outcomes, from unscheduled hospital admission to death) was measured with the use of EHRs. The per-patient cost in the 17 EHR-supported trials varied from US$44 to US$2000, and total RCT costs from US$67 750 to US$5 026 000. In the remaining 172 RCTs (91.0%), EHRs were used as a modality of intervention. INTERPRETATION:Randomized controlled trials are frequently and increasingly conducted with the use of EHRs, but mainly as part of the intervention. In some trials, EHRs were used successfully to support recruitment and outcome assessment. Costs may be reduced once the data infrastructure is established.

SUBMITTER: Mc Cord KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6375253 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Current use and costs of electronic health records for clinical trial research: a descriptive study.

Mc Cord Kimberly A KA Ewald Hannah H Ladanie Aviv A Briel Matthias M Speich Benjamin B Bucher Heiner C HC Hemkens Lars G LG

CMAJ open 20190101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Electronic health records (EHRs) may support randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe the current use and costs of EHRs in RCTs, with a focus on recruitment and outcome assessment.<h4>Methods</h4>This descriptive study was based on a PubMed search of RCTs published since 2000 that evaluated any medical intervention with the use of EHRs. Cost information was obtained from RCT investigators who used EHR infrastructures for recruitment or outcome measurement but ...[more]

PMID: 30718353

Similar Datasets

Project description:The objective was to compare case ascertainment, agreement, validity, and missing values for clinical research data obtained, processed, and linked electronically from electronic health records (EHR) compared to "manual" data processing and record abstraction in a cohort of out-of-hospital trauma patients.? This was a secondary analysis of two sets of data collected for a prospective, population-based, out-of-hospital trauma cohort evaluated by 10 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies transporting to 16 hospitals, from January 1, 2006, through October 2, 2007. Eighteen clinical, operational, procedural, and outcome variables were collected and processed separately and independently using two parallel data processing strategies by personnel blinded to patients in the other group. The electronic approach included EHR data exports from EMS agencies, reformatting, and probabilistic linkage to outcomes from local trauma registries and state discharge databases. The manual data processing approach included chart matching, data abstraction, and data entry by a trained abstractor. Descriptive statistics, measures of agreement, and validity were used to compare the two approaches to data processing.? During the 21-month period, 418 patients underwent both data processing methods and formed the primary cohort. Agreement was good to excellent (kappa = 0.76 to 0.97; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.49 to 0.97), with exact agreement in 67% to 99% of cases and a median difference of zero for all continuous and ordinal variables. The proportions of missing out-of-hospital values were similar between the two approaches, although electronic processing generated more missing outcomes (87 of 418, 21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 25%) than the manual approach (11 of 418, 3%, 95% CI = 1% to 5%). Case ascertainment of eligible injured patients was greater using electronic methods (n = 3,008) compared to manual methods (n = 629).? In this sample of out-of-hospital trauma patients, an all-electronic data processing strategy identified more patients and generated values with good agreement and validity compared to traditional data collection and processing methods.

Project description:BackgroundEHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate.MethodsWe conducted 15 focus groups (n =?110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters.ResultsFor initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions.ConclusionsExternal validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.

Project description:BackgroundPredicting the risk of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) elevation can help identify patients with the potential for developing serious chronic health problems, such as diabetes. Early preventive interventions based upon advanced predictive models using electronic health records data for identifying such patients can ultimately help provide better health outcomes.ObjectiveOur study investigated the performance of predictive models to forecast HbA1c elevation levels by employing several machine learning models. We also examined the use of patient electronic health record longitudinal data in the performance of the predictive models. Explainable methods were employed to interpret the decisions made by the black box models.MethodsThis study employed multiple logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and logistic regression models, as well as a deep learning model (multilayer perceptron) to classify patients with normal (<5.7%) and elevated (≥5.7%) levels of HbA1c. We also integrated current visit data with historical (longitudinal) data from previous visits. Explainable machine learning methods were used to interrogate the models and provide an understanding of the reasons behind the decisions made by the models. All models were trained and tested using a large data set from Saudi Arabia with 18,844 unique patient records.ResultsThe machine learning models achieved promising results for predicting current HbA1c elevation risk. When coupled with longitudinal data, the machine learning models outperformed the multiple logistic regression model used in the comparative study. The multilayer perceptron model achieved an accuracy of 83.22% for the area under receiver operating characteristic curve when used with historical data. All models showed a close level of agreement on the contribution of random blood sugar and age variables with and without longitudinal data.ConclusionsThis study shows that machine learning models can provide promising results for the task of predicting current HbA1c levels (≥5.7% or less). Using patients' longitudinal data improved the performance and affected the relative importance for the predictors used. The models showed results that are consistent with comparable studies.

Dataset Information

Current use and costs of electronic health records for clinical trial research: a descriptive study.

Publications

Current use and costs of electronic health records for clinical trial research: a descriptive study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets