SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2014
Views of healthcare professionals to linkage of routinely collected healthcare data: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linking local cancer registries and national death records: a crucial step for accurate survival data in Saudi Arabia.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Definitions, components and processes of data harmonisation in healthcare: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Defining and conceptualising data harmonisation: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Article
- Linked health data for pharmacovigilance in children: perceived legal and ethical issues for stakeholders and data guardians.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Linking NHS data for pediatric pharmacovigilance: Results of a Delphi survey.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo review the literature on the views of healthcare professionals to the linkage of healthcare data and to identify any potential barriers and/or facilitators to participation in a data linkage system.
methodsPublished papers describing the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to data sharing and linkage were identified by searches of Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and PsychINFO. The searches were limited to papers published in the English language from 2001 to 2011.
resultsA total of 2917 titles were screened. From these, 18 papers describing the views of HCPs about data linkage or data sharing of routinely collected healthcare data at an individual patient level were included. Views were generally positive, and potential benefits were reported. Facilitators included having trust in the system including data governance, reliability, and feedback. Some negative views, identified as barriers were also expressed including costs, data governance, technical issues, and privacy concerns. Effects on the physician-patient relationship, and workload were also identified as deterrent. DISCUSSION: From the published literature included in this review, the views of HCPs were in general positive towards data sharing for public health purposes. The identification of barriers to contributing to a data linkage system allows these to be addressed in a planned data linkage project for pharmacovigilance. The main barriers identified were concerns about costs, governance and interference with the prescriber-patient relationship. These would have to be addressed if healthcare professionals are to support a data linkage system to improve patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.