A review of accessibility of administrative healthcare databases in the Asia-Pacific region.

objectiveWe describe and compare the availability and accessibility of administrative healthcare databases (AHDB) in several Asia-Pacific countries: Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Thailand, and Malaysia.

methodsThe study included hospital records, reimbursement databases, prescription databases, and data linkages. Databases were first identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, and the ISPOR database register. Database custodians were contacted. Six criteria were used to assess the databases and provided the basis for a tool to categorise databases into seven levels ranging from least accessible (Level 1) to most accessible (Level 7). We also categorised overall data accessibility for each country as high, medium, or low based on accessibility of databases as well as the number of academic articles published using the databases.

resultsFifty-four administrative databases were identified. Only a limited number of databases allowed access to raw data and were at Level 7 [Medical Data Vision EBM Provider, Japan Medical Data Centre (JMDC) Claims database and Nihon-Chouzai Pharmacy Claims database in Japan, and Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), Centre for Health Record Linkage (CHeReL), HealthLinQ, Victorian Data Linkages (VDL), SA-NT DataLink in Australia]. At Levels 3-6 were several databases from Japan [Hamamatsu Medical University Database, Medi-Trend, Nihon University School of Medicine Clinical Data Warehouse (NUSM)], Australia [Western Australia Data Linkage (WADL)], Taiwan [National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD)], South Korea [Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA)], and Malaysia [United Nations University (UNU)-Casemix]. Countries were categorised as having a high level of data accessibility (Australia, Taiwan, and Japan), medium level of accessibility (South Korea), or a low level of accessibility (Thailand, China, Malaysia, and Singapore). In some countries, data may be available but accessibility was restricted based on requirements by data custodians.

conclusionsCompared with previous research, this study describes the landscape of databases in the selected countries with more granularity using an assessment tool developed for this purpose. A high number of databases were identified but most had restricted access, preventing their potential use to support research. We hope that this study helps to improve the understanding of the AHDB landscape, increase data sharing and database research in Asia-Pacific countries.