Dataset Information

Patterns of care for people presenting to Australian general practice with musculoskeletal complaints based on routinely collected data: protocol for an observational cohort study using the Population Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) database.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

General practice is integral to the Australian healthcare system. Outcome Health's POpulation Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) database uses de-identified electronic health records to analyse general practice data in Australia. Previous studies using routinely collected health data for research have not consistently reported the codes and algorithms used to describe the population, exposures, interventions and outcomes in sufficient detail to allow replication. This paper reports a study protocol investigating patterns of care for people presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to general practice in Victoria, Australia. Its focus is on the systematic approach used to classify and select eligible records from the POLAR database to facilitate replication. This will be useful for other researchers using routinely collected health data for research.

Methods and analysis

This is a retrospective cohort study. Patient-related data will be obtained through electronic health records from a subset of general practices across three primary health networks (PHN) in southeastern Victoria. Data for patients with a low back, neck, shoulder and/or knee condition and who received at least one general practitioner (GP) face-to-face consultation between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 will be included. Data quality checks will be conducted to exclude patients with poor data recording and/or non-continuous follow-up. Relational data files with eligible and valid records will be merged to select the study cohort and the GP care received (consultations, imaging requests, prescriptions and referrals) between diagnosis and 31 December 2018. Number and characteristics of patients and GPs, and number, type and timing of imaging requests, prescriptions for pain relief and referrals to other health providers will be investigated.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval was obtained from the Cabrini and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committees (Reference Numbers 02-21-01-19 and 16975, respectively). Study findings will be reported to Outcome Health, participating PHNs, disseminated in academic journals and presented in conferences.

SUBMITTER: Haas R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475141 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveRoutinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.MethodsTwo modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period.ResultsThe qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist.ConclusionsThe RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether gender differences in primary care consultation rates (1) vary by age and deprivation status and (2) diminish when consultation for reproductive reasons or common underlying morbidities are accounted for.DesignCross-sectional study of a cohort of patients registered with general practice.SettingUK primary care.SubjectsPatients (1 869 149 men and 1 916 898 women) registered with 446 eligible practices in 2010.Primary outcome measuresPrimary care consultation rate.ResultsThis study analyses routinely collected primary care consultation data. The crude consultation rate was 32% lower in men than women. The magnitude of gender difference varied across the life course, and there was no 'excess' female consulting in early and later life. The greatest gender gap in primary care consultations was seen among those aged between 16 and 60 years. Gender differences in consulting were higher in people from more deprived areas than among those from more affluent areas. Accounting for reproductive-related consultations diminished but did not eradicate the gender gap. However, consultation rates in men and women who had comparable underlying morbidities (as assessed by receipt of medication) were similar; men in receipt of antidepressant medication were only 8% less likely to consult than women in receipt of antidepressant medication (relative risk (RR) 0.916, 95% CI 0.913 to 0.918), and men in receipt of medication to treat cardiovascular disease were just 5% less likely to consult (RR=0.950, 95% CI 0.948 to 0.952) than women receiving similar medication. These small gender differences diminished further, particularly for depression (RR=0.950, 95% CI 0.947 to 0.953), after also taking account of reproductive consultations.ConclusionsOverall gender differences in consulting are most marked between the ages of 16 and 60 years; these differences are only partially accounted for by consultations for reproductive reasons. Differences in consultation rates between men and women were largely eradicated when comparing men and women in receipt of medication for similar underlying morbidities.