A national initiative in data science for health: an evaluation of the UK Farr Institute

What makes administrative data "research-ready"? A systematic review and thematic analysis of published literature

Introduction

Administrative data are a valuable research resource, but are under-utilised in the UK due to governance, technical and other barriers (e.g., the time and effort taken to gain secure data access). In recent years, there has been considerable government investment in making administrative data "research-ready", but there is no definition of what this term means. A common understanding of what constitutes research-ready administrative data is needed to establish clear principles and frameworks for their development and the realisation of their full research potential.

Objective

To define the characteristics of research-ready administrative data based on a systematic review and synthesis of existing literature.

Methods

On 29th June 2021, we systematically searched seven electronic databases for (1) peer-reviewed literature (2) related to research-ready administrative data (3) written in the English language. Following supplementary searches and snowball screening, we conducted a thematic analysis of the identified relevant literature.

Results

Overall, we screened 2,375 records and identified 38 relevant studies published between 2012 and 2021. Most related to administrative data from the UK and US and particularly to health data. The term research-ready was used inconsistently in the literature and there was some conflation with the concept of data being ready for statistical analysis. From the thematic analysis, we identified five defining characteristics of research-ready administrative data: (a) accessible, (b) broad, (c) curated, (d) documented and (e) enhanced for research purposes.

Conclusions

Our proposed characteristics of research-ready administrative data could act as a starting point to help data owners and researchers develop common principles and standards. In the more immediate term, the proposed characteristics are a useful framework for cataloguing existing research-ready administrative databases and relevant resources that can support their development.

Challenges and opportunities for using population health data to investigate cancer survivors' quality of life in Australia

There is a recognised need for reported national data that inform health policy, health professions, and consumers about the wellbeing of Australians with cancer and other chronic conditions. International initiatives have demonstrated the viability and benefits of utilising population-based cancer registries to monitor the prevalence and trajectory of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes among people with cancer. Establishing a similar level of monitoring in Australia would require timely access to health data collected by publicly funded, population-based cancer registries, and the capacity to link this information across jurisdictions. Combining information from different sources via data linkage is an efficient and cost-effective way to maximise how data are used to inform population health and policy development. However, linking health datasets has historically been highly restricted, resource-intensive, and costly in Australia due to complex and outdated legislative requirements, duplicative approval processes, and differing policy frameworks in each state and territory. This has resulted in significant research waste due to underutilisation of existing data, duplication of research efforts and resources, and data not being translated into decision-making. Recognising these challenges, from 2015 to 2017 the Productivity Commission investigated options for improving data availability and use in Australia, considering factors such as privacy, security, and intellectual property. The inquiry report recommended significant reforms for Australian legislation, including the creation of a data sharing and release structure to improve access to data for research and policy development purposes. This paper discusses (1) opportunities in HRQOL research enabled by data linkage, (2) barriers to data access and use in Australia and the implications for waste in HRQOL research, and (3) proposed legislative reforms for improving data availability and use in Australia.

Identifying researcher learning needs to develop online training for UK researchers working with administrative data: CENTRIC training

BACKGROUND

The use of administrative data in health and social science research continues to expand, with increased availability of data and interest from funders. Researchers, however, continue to experience delays in access, storage and sharing of administrative data. Training opportunities are limited and typically specific to individual data providers or focussed on the analytical aspects of working with administrative data. The CENTRIC study was funded by the Information Commissioners Office, with the aim of developing a broader training curriculum for researchers working with administrative data in the UK.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design informed curriculum content, including surveys with researchers, focus group discussions with data providers and workshops with members of the public. Researchers were identified from relevant administrative data networks and invited to participate in an online survey identifying training needs. Data providers were approached with a request to input to a face-to-face or online meeting with two members of the research team about their experiences of working with researchers. Data were analysed within the broad framework of the interview schedule, free text responses in the survey were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

107 researchers responded to the online survey and four data providers participated in the focus groups. We identified five main themes, relating to research training needs for UK researchers working with administrative data: communication; timelines; changes & amendments; future-proofing applications; and, the availability of training and support. Data providers either provided additional evidence on these learning needs or ways to address identified challenges. Six modules were developed addressing these training needs. Quotes from the survey and focus groups are used anonymously in the online training modules.

CONCLUSION

The CENTRIC online training curriculum was launched in September 2020 and is available, free of charge for UK researchers. CENTRIC specifically addresses commonly identified training needs of researchers working with administrative data.

A Social Media Campaign (#datasaveslives) to Promote the Benefits of Using Health Data for Research Purposes: Mixed Methods Analysis

BACKGROUND

Social media provides the potential to engage a wide audience about scientific research, including the public. However, little empirical research exists to guide health scientists regarding what works and how to optimize impact. We examined the social media campaign #datasaveslives established in 2014 to highlight positive examples of the use and reuse of health data in research.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine how the #datasaveslives hashtag was used on social media, how often, and by whom; thus, we aim to provide insights into the impact of a major social media campaign in the UK health informatics research community and further afield.

METHODS

We analyzed all publicly available posts (tweets) that included the hashtag #datasaveslives (N=13,895) on the microblogging platform Twitter between September 1, 2016, and August 31, 2017. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses, we determined the frequency and purpose of tweets. Social network analysis was used to analyze and visualize tweet sharing (retweet) networks among hashtag users.

RESULTS

Overall, we found 4175 original posts and 9720 retweets featuring #datasaveslives by 3649 unique Twitter users. In total, 66.01% (2756/4175) of the original posts were retweeted at least once. Higher frequencies of tweets were observed during the weeks of prominent policy publications, popular conferences, and public engagement events. Cluster analysis based on retweet relationships revealed an interconnected series of groups of #datasaveslives users in academia, health services and policy, and charities and patient networks. Thematic analysis of tweets showed that #datasaveslives was used for a broader range of purposes than indexing information, including event reporting, encouraging participation and action, and showing personal support for data sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a hashtag-based social media campaign was effective in encouraging a wide audience of stakeholders to disseminate positive examples of health research. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the campaign supported community building and bridging practices within and between the interdisciplinary sectors related to the field of health data science and encouraged individuals to demonstrate personal support for sharing health data.