Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39620116›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of population data science2024

Secondary use of routinely collected administrative health data for epidemiologic research: Answering research questions using data collected for a different purpose.

Scott D Emerson, Taylor McLinden, Paul Sereda, Amanda M Yonkman, Jason Trigg, Sandra Peterson, Robert S Hogg, Kate A Salters, Viviane D Lima, Rolando Barrios

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of population data science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Scott D EmersonBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Taylor McLindenFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Paul SeredaBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Amanda M YonkmanBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Jason TriggBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Sandra PetersonCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Robert S HoggBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kate A SaltersBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Viviane D LimaBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Rolando BarriosBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of routinely collected administrative health data for research can provide unique insights to inform decision-making and, ultimately, support better public health outcomes. Yet, since these data are primarily collected to administer healthcare service delivery, challenges exist when using such data for secondary purposes, namely epidemiologic research. Many of these challenges stem from the researcher's lack of control over the quality and consistency of data collection, and - furthermore - a lessened understanding of the data being analyzed. That said, we assert that these challenges can be partly mitigated through careful, systematic use of these data in epidemiologic research. This article presents considerations derived from experiences analyzing administrative health data (e.g., healthcare practitioner billings, hospitalizations, and prescription medication data) in the Canadian province of British Columbia (population of over 5 million in 2024), though we believe the underlying principles generalize beyond this region. Key considerations were organized around four themes: 1)

Indexed as

Routinely Collected Health DataBritish ColumbiaEpidemiologic StudiesHumansadministrative health dataCanadaepidemiologyvalidity

Identifiers

PMID39620116
PMCPMC11606632

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.