ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Using routine primary care data in research: (in)efficient case studies and perspectives from the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe aimed to identify enablers and barriers of using primary care routine data for healthcare research, to formulate recommendations for improving efficiency in knowledge discovery.
backgroundData recorded routinely in primary care can be used for estimating the impact of interventions provided within routine care for all people who are clinically eligible. Despite official promotion of 'efficient trial designs', anecdotally researchers in the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) have encountered multiple barriers to accessing and using routine data.
methodsUsing studies within the AUKCAR portfolio as exemplars, we captured limitations, barriers, successes, and strengths through correspondence and discussions with the principal investigators and project managers of the case studies.
resultsWe identified 14 studies (8 trials, 2 developmental studies and 4 observational studies). Investigators agreed that using routine primary care data potentially offered a convenient collection of data for effectiveness outcomes, health economic assessment and process evaluation in one data extraction. However, this advantage was overshadowed by time-consuming processes that were major barriers to conducting efficient research. Common themes were multiple layers of information governance approvals in addition to the ethics and local governance approvals required by all health service research; lack of standardisation so that local approvals required diverse paperwork and reached conflicting conclusions as to whether a study should be approved. Practical consequences included a trial that over-recruited by 20% in order to randomise 144 practices with all required permissions, and a 5-year delay in reporting a trial while retrospectively applied regulations were satisfied to allow data linkage.
conclusionsOvercoming the substantial barriers of using routine primary care data will require a streamlined governance process, standardised understanding/application of regulations and adequate National Health Service IT (Information Technology) capability. Without policy-driven prioritisation of these changes, the potential of this valuable resource will not be leveraged.
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.