ArticleHealth information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia2026
Applying the hospital administrative data quality scoring tool in 15 countries.
Article in Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital infrastructure and proxies of ambulatory care access in Russia, 2018-2024: a regional panel study with a national telemedicine signal analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveHospital administrative data serves as a rich source of information for resource allocation, surveillance, and international comparisons. Differences in coding practices and guidelines lead to variations in hospital administrative data. This study outlines our team's process of creating a standardised tool, the Hospital Administrative Data Quality (HADQ) scoring tool, which will allow countries to assess their HADQ.
methodWe previously developed 24 indicators through a Delphi consensus method. To test the applicability of these indicators, we approached 50 countries with an online survey comprised of qualitative and quantitative questions based on the 24 indicators. An overall score out of 20 for data quality was calculated for each country based on the survey responses. The score was classified into three categories: high data quality, moderate data quality and low data quality.
resultsOf the 50 countries invited, 17 responded. Surveys from two countries were excluded due to insufficient data. Country responses were evaluated and scored by dimension. The data quality indicators showed positive face validity and were applicable for most countries providing comparative information for development of the tool with good discrimination. Canada, United States of America, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Spain were among the countries with an overall high data quality score. Most countries scored high in 3 out of 5 dimensions of data quality. A few counties scored 0 in "Relevance" and "Timeliness" resulting in a lower score.ConclusionThe HADQ tool developed in this study will support the assessment and comparison of HADQ by applying the same standard within and across countries.Implications for health information management practice:The HADQ tool can be used by diverse users such as the researchers, government bodies and policymakers interested in improving hospital administrative data quality following standardised indicators that can applied globally.
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.