Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25848589›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2014

Data governance and data sharing agreements for community-wide health information exchange: lessons from the beacon communities.

Claudia Allen, Terrisca R Des Jardins, Arvela Heider, Kristin A Lyman, Lee McWilliams, Alison L Rein, Abigail A Schachter, Ranjit Singh, Barbara Sorondo, Joan Topper and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. iCONCUR: informed consent for clinical data and bio-sample use for research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Claudia AllenGreater Cincinnati HealthBridge, Inc.
Terrisca R Des JardinsSoutheastern Michigan Health Association.
Arvela HeiderHEALTHeLINK.
Kristin A LymanLouisiana Public Health Institute.
Lee McWilliamsEastern Main Healthcare Systems.
Alison L ReinAcademyHealth.
Abigail A SchachterAcademyHealth.
Ranjit SinghState University of New York.
Barbara SorondoEastern Main Healthcare Systems.
Joan TopperGeisinger Health System.
Scott A TurskeSoutheastern Michigan Health Association.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUnprecedented efforts are underway across the United States to electronically capture and exchange health information to improve health care and population health, and reduce costs. This increased collection and sharing of electronic patient data raises several governance issues, including privacy, security, liability, and market competition. Those engaged in such efforts have had to develop data sharing agreements (DSAs) among entities involved in information exchange, many of whom are "nontraditional" health care entities and/or new partners. This paper shares lessons learned based on the experiences of six federally funded communities participating in the Beacon Community Cooperative Agreement Program, and offers guidance for navigating data governance issues and developing DSAs to facilitate community-wide health information exchange. INNOVATION: While all entities involved in electronic data sharing must address governance issues and create DSAs accordingly, until recently little formal guidance existed for doing so - particularly for community-based initiatives. Despite this lack of guidance, together the Beacon Communities' experiences highlight promising strategies for navigating complex governance issues, which may be useful to other entities or communities initiating information exchange efforts to support delivery system transformation. CREDIBILITY: For the past three years, AcademyHealth has provided technical assistance to most of the 17 Beacon Communities, 6 of whom contributed to this collaborative writing effort. Though these communities varied widely in terms of their demographics, resources, and Beacon-driven priorities, common themes emerged as they described their approaches to data governance and DSA development.

conclusionsThe 6 Beacon Communities confirmed that DSAs are necessary to satisfy legal and market-based concerns, and they identified several specific issues, many of which have been noted by others involved in network data sharing initiatives. More importantly, these communities identified several promising approaches to timely and effective DSA development, including: stakeholder engagement; identification and effective communication of value; adoption of a parsimonious approach; attention to market-based concerns; flexibility in adapting and expanding existing agreements and partnerships; and anticipation of required time and investment.

Indexed as

Data Use AgreementsGovernanceHealth Information ExchangeHealth Information Technology

Identifiers

PMID25848589
PMCPMC4371395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.