ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Why Do Data Users Say Health Care Data Are Difficult to Use? A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. 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.
- Federated Estimation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models with Exact Equivalence to Pooled-Data Analysis.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Synthetic data, synthetic trust: navigating data challenges in the digital revolution.The Lancet. Digital health · 2025Review
- Concept Libraries for Repeatable and Reusable Research: Qualitative Study Exploring the Needs of Users.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Sharing intention of electronic health records in online health communities: Patients' behavioral decisions in the context of privacy protection measures.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Assessment of Inter-Institutional Post-Operative Hypoparathyroidism Status Using a Common Data Model.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Effect of Age on the Initiation of Biologic Agent Therapy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Korean Common Data Model Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been significant effort in attempting to use health care data. However, laws that protect patients' privacy have restricted data use because health care data contain sensitive information. Thus, discussions on privacy laws now focus on the active use of health care data beyond protection. However, current literature does not clarify the obstacles that make data usage and deidentification processes difficult or elaborate on users' needs for data linking from practical perspectives.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to investigate (1) the current status of data use in each medical area, (2) institutional efforts and difficulties in deidentification processes, and (3) users' data linking needs.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey. To recruit people who have used health care data, we publicized the promotion campaign and sent official documents to an academic society encouraging participation in the online survey.
resultsIn total, 128 participants responded to the online survey; 10 participants were excluded for either inconsistent responses or lack of demand for health care data. Finally, 118 participants' responses were analyzed. The majority of participants worked in general hospitals or universities (62/118, 52.5% and 51/118, 43.2%, respectively, multiple-choice answers). More than half of participants responded that they have a need for clinical data (82/118, 69.5%) and public data (76/118, 64.4%). Furthermore, 85.6% (101/118) of respondents conducted deidentification measures when using data, and they considered rigid social culture as an obstacle for deidentification (28/101, 27.7%). In addition, they required data linking (98/118, 83.1%), and they noted deregulation and data standardization to allow access to health care data linking (33/98, 33.7% and 38/98, 38.8%, respectively). There were no significant differences in the proportion of responded data needs and linking in groups that used health care data for either public purposes or commercial purposes.
conclusionsThis study provides a cross-sectional view from a practical, user-oriented perspective on the kinds of data users want to utilize, efforts and difficulties in deidentification processes, and the needs for data linking. Most users want to use clinical and public data, and most participants conduct deidentification processes and express a desire to conduct data linking. Our study confirmed that they noted regulation as a primary obstacle whether their purpose is commercial or public. A legal system based on both data utilization and data protection needs is required.
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.