Dataset Information

Limitations for health research with restricted data collection from UK primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

UK primary care provides a rich data source for research. The impact of proposed data collection restrictions is unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of restricting the scope of electronic health record (EHR) data collection on the ability to conduct research. The study estimated the consequences of restricted data collection on published Clinical Practice Research Datalink studies from high impact journals or referenced in clinical guidelines.

Methods

A structured form was used to systematically analyse the extent to which individual studies would have been possible using a database with data collection restrictions in place: (1) retrospective collection of specified diseases only; (2) retrospective collection restricted to a 6- or 12-year period; (3) prospective and retrospective collection restricted to non-sensitive data. Outcomes were categorised as unfeasible (not reproducible without major bias); compromised (feasible with design modification); or unaffected.

Results

Overall, 91% studies were compromised with all restrictions in place; 56% studies were unfeasible even with design modification. With restrictions on diseases alone, 74% studies were compromised; 51% were unfeasible. Restricting collection to 6/12 years had a major impact, with 67 and 22% of studies compromised, respectively. Restricting collection of sensitive data had a lesser but marked impact with 10% studies compromised.

Conclusion

EHR data collection restrictions can profoundly reduce the capacity for public health research that underpins evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance. National initiatives seeking to collect EHRs should consider the implications of restricting data collection on the ability to address vital public health questions.

SUBMITTER: Strongman H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6618795 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Limitations for health research with restricted data collection from UK primary care.

Strongman Helen H Williams Rachael R Meeraus Wilhelmine W Murray-Thomas Tarita T Campbell Jennifer J Carty Lucy L Dedman Daniel D Gallagher Arlene M AM Oyinlola Jessie J Kousoulis Antonis A Valentine Janet J

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 20190416 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>UK primary care provides a rich data source for research. The impact of proposed data collection restrictions is unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of restricting the scope of electronic health record (EHR) data collection on the ability to conduct research. The study estimated the consequences of restricted data collection on published Clinical Practice Research Datalink studies from high impact journals or referenced in clinical guidelines.<h4>Methods</h4>A structur ...[more]

PMID: 30993808

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis scoping review reports on studies that collect survey data using quantitative research to measure self-reported oral health status outcome measures. The objective of this review is to categorize measures used to evaluate self-reported oral health status and oral health quality of life used in surveys of general populations.MethodsThe review is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) with the search on four online bibliographic databases. The criteria include (1) peer-reviewed articles, (2) papers published between 2011 and 2021, (3) only studies using quantitative methods, and (4) containing outcome measures of self-assessed oral health status, and/or oral health-related quality of life. All survey data collection methods are assessed and papers whose methods employ newer technological approaches are also identified.ResultsOf the 2981 unduplicated papers, 239 meet the eligibility criteria. Half of the papers use impact scores such as the OHIP-14; 10% use functional measures, such as the GOHAI, and 26% use two or more measures while 8% use rating scales of oral health status. The review identifies four data collection methods: in-person, mail-in, Internet-based, and telephone surveys. Most (86%) employ in-person surveys, and 39% are conducted in Asia-Pacific and Middle East countries with 8% in North America. Sixty-six percent of the studies recruit participants directly from clinics and schools, where the surveys were carried out. The top three sampling methods are convenience sampling (52%), simple random sampling (12%), and stratified sampling (12%). Among the four data collection methods, in-person surveys have the highest response rate (91%), while the lowest response rate occurs in Internet-based surveys (37%). Telephone surveys are used to cover a wider population compared to other data collection methods. There are two noteworthy approaches: 1) sample selection where researchers employ different platforms to access subjects, and 2) mode of interaction with subjects, with the use of computers to collect self-reported data.ConclusionThe study provides an assessment of oral health outcome measures, including subject-reported oral health status and notes newly emerging computer technological approaches recently used in surveys conducted on general populations. These newer applications, though rarely used, hold promise for both researchers and the various populations that use or need oral health care.

Project description:BackgroundWithin-consultation recruitment to primary care trials is challenging. Ensuring procedures are efficient and self-explanatory is the key to optimising recruitment. Trial recruitment software that integrates with the electronic health record to support and partially automate procedures is becoming more common. If it works well, such software can support greater participation and more efficient trial designs. An innovative electronic trial recruitment and outcomes software was designed to support recruitment to the Runny Ear randomised controlled trial, comparing topical, oral and delayed antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media with discharge in children. A qualitative evaluation investigated the views and experiences of primary care staff using this trial software.MethodsStaff were purposively sampled in relation to site, role and whether the practice successfully recruited patients. In-depth interviews were conducted using a flexible topic guide, audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsSixteen staff were interviewed, including GPs, practice managers, information technology (IT) leads and research staff. GPs wanted trial software that automatically captures patient data. However, the experience of getting the software to work within the limited and complex IT infrastructure of primary care was frustrating and time consuming. Installation was reliant on practice level IT expertise, which varied between practices. Although most had external IT support, this rarely included supported for research IT. Arrangements for approving new software varied across practices and often, but not always, required authorisation from Clinical Commissioning Groups.ConclusionsPrimary care IT systems are not solely under the control of individual practices or CCGs or the National Health Service. Rather they are part of a complex system that spans all three and is influenced by semi-autonomous stakeholders operating at different levels. This led to time consuming and sometimes insurmountable barriers to installation at the practice level. These need to be addressed if software supporting efficient research in primary care is to become a reality.

Project description:BackgroundStarting with early identification of palliative care patients by general practitioners (GPs), the Care Pathway for Primary Palliative Care (CPPPC) is believed to help primary health care workers to deliver patient- and family-centered care in the last year of life. The care pathway has been pilot-tested, and will now be implemented in 5 Belgian regions: 2 Dutch-speaking regions, 2 French-speaking regions and the bilingual capital region of Brussels. The overall aim of the CPPPC is to provide better quality of primary palliative care, and in the end to reduce the hospital death rate. The aim of this article is to describe the quantitative design and innovative data collection strategy used in the evaluation of this complex intervention.Methods/designA quasi-experimental stepped wedge cluster design is set up with the 5 regions being 5 non-randomized clusters. The primary outcome is reduced hospital death rate per GPs' patient population. Secondary outcomes are increased death at home and health care consumption patterns suggesting high quality palliative care. Per research cluster, GPs will be recruited via convenience sampling. These GPs -volunteering to be involved will recruit people with reduced life expectancy and their informal care givers. Health care consumption data in the last year of life, available for all deceased people having lived in the research clusters in the study period, will be used for comparison between patient populations of participating GPs and patient populations of non-participating GPs. Description of baseline characteristics of participating GPs and patients and monitoring of the level of involvement by GPs, patients and informal care givers will happen through regular, privacy-secured web-surveys. Web-survey data and health consumption data are linked in a secure way, respecting Belgian privacy laws.DiscussionTo evaluate this complex intervention, a quasi-experimental stepped wedge cluster design has been set up. Context characteristics and involvement level of participants are important parameters in evaluating complex interventions. It is possible to securely link survey data with health consumption data. By appealing to IT solutions we hope to be able to partly reduce respondent burden, a known problem in palliative care research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02266069.

Dataset Information

Limitations for health research with restricted data collection from UK primary care.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Limitations for health research with restricted data collection from UK primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets