Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38777803›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Understanding enterprise data warehouses to support clinical and translational research: impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility.

Thomas R Campion, Catherine K Craven, David A Dorr, Elmer V Bernstam, Boyd M Knosp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Thomas R CampionClinical & Translational Science Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10022, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7624-769X
Catherine K CravenDivision of Clinical Research Informatics, Department of Population Health Sciences, The University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9647-3045
David A DorrDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2318-7261
Elmer V BernstamD. Bradley McWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7643-791X
Boyd M KnospRoy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine and the Institute for Clinical & Translational Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States.

Funding

The University of Iowa Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR002537 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI HANSEN, MARLAN R, WINOKUR, PATRICIA · 2018 to 2022
$20.0M
National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences UL1TR 002537NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002537NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR 002537NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealthcare organizations, including Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs funded by the National Institutes of Health, seek to enable secondary use of electronic health record (EHR) data through an enterprise data warehouse for research (EDW4R), but optimal approaches are unknown. In this qualitative study, our goal was to understand EDW4R impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe engaged a convenience sample of informatics leaders from CTSA hubs (n = 21) for semi-structured interviews and completed a directed content analysis of interview transcripts.

resultsEDW4R have created institutional capacity for single- and multi-center studies, democratized access to EHR data for investigators from multiple disciplines, and enabled the learning health system. Bibliometrics have been challenging due to investigator non-compliance, but one hub's requirement to link all study protocols with funding records enabled quantifying an EDW4R's multi-million dollar impact. Sustainability of EDW4R has relied on multiple funding sources with a general shift away from the CTSA grant toward institutional and industry support. To address EDW4R demand, institutions have expanded staff, used different governance approaches, and provided investigator self-service tools. EDW4R accessibility can benefit from improved tools incorporating user-centered design, increased data literacy among scientists, expansion of informaticians in the workforce, and growth of team science. DISCUSSION: As investigator demand for EDW4R has increased, approaches to tracking impact, ensuring sustainability, and improving accessibility of EDW4R resources have varied.

conclusionThis study adds to understanding of how informatics leaders seek to support investigators using EDW4R across the CTSA consortium and potentially elsewhere.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsTranslational Research, BiomedicalData WarehousingHumansInterviews as TopicNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Qualitative ResearchUnited StatesCTSAdata warehouseEHRsecondary use

Identifiers

PMID38777803
PMCPMC11187432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.