A documentary analysis of Victorian Government health information assets' websites to identify availability of documentation for data sharing and reuse in Australia

被引:3
作者
Riley, Merilyn F. [1 ,5 ]
Robinson, Kerin [1 ]
Kilkenny, Monique F. [2 ,3 ]
Leggat, Sandy G. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] La Trobe Univ, Melbourne, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Melbourne, Australia
[3] Florey Inst Neurosci & Mental Hlth, Melbourne, Australia
[4] James Cook Univ, Cairns, Australia
[5] La Trobe Univ, Sch Psychol & Publ Hlth, Kingsbury Dr, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia
关键词
routinely collected health data; data sharing; secondary data analysis; data curation; data accuracy; health information systems; health information management; AGREEMENT; REGISTRY; LINKAGE;
D O I
10.1177/18333583231197756
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Health data sharing is important for monitoring diseases, policy and practice, and planning health services. If health data are used for secondary purposes, information needs to be provided to assist in reuse.Objectives: To review government health information asset websites to ascertain the extent of readily available, explanatory documentation for researcher sharing and reuse of these data.Method: Documentary analysis was undertaken on selected Victorian Government health information assets' websites in Australia. Data were obtained on nine information-categories: data custodian; data context; data dictionary; quality controls; data quality; limitations; access process; privacy/confidentiality/security and research requests/outputs. Information-categories were compared by dataset type (administrative or population-health) and by curating organisation (government or other agency). Descriptive statistics were used.Results: The majority of the 25 websites examined provided information on data custodian (96%) and data context (92%). Two-thirds reported access process (68%) and privacy/confidentiality/security information (64%). Compared with population-health websites, administrative dataset websites were more likely to provide access to a data dictionary (67% vs 50%) and information on quality controls (56% vs 44%), but less likely to provide information on the access process (56% vs 75%) and on research requests/outputs (0% vs 56%, p = 0.024). Compared with government-curated websites, other agency websites were more likely to provide information on research requests/outputs (80% vs 7%, p < 0.001).Conclusion: There is inconsistent explanatory documentation available for researchers for reuse of Victorian Government health datasets. Importantly, there is insufficient information on data quality or dataset limitations. Research-curated dataset websites are significantly more transparent in displaying research requests or outputs.
引用
收藏
页码:84 / 92
页数:9
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Addressing the challenges of cross-jurisdictional data linkage between a national clinical quality registry and government-held health data
    Andrew, Nadine E.
    Sundararajan, Vijaya
    Thrift, Amanda G.
    Kilkenny, Monique F.
    Katzenellenbogen, Judith
    Flack, Felicity
    Gattellari, Melina
    Boyd, James H.
    Anderson, Phil
    Grabsch, Brenda
    Lannin, Natasha A.
    Johnston, Trisha
    Chen, Ying
    Cadilhac, Dominique A.
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2016, 40 (05) : 436 - 442
  • [2] Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, 2022, DAT STRAT 2022 2025
  • [3] The contextual nature of medical information
    Berg, M
    Goorman, E
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 1999, 56 (1-3) : 51 - 60
  • [4] Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method
    Bowen, Glenn A.
    [J]. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2009, 9 (02) : 27 - +
  • [5] Investigating Open Government Data Barriers A Literature Review and Conceptualization
    Crusoe, Jonathan
    Melin, Ulf
    [J]. ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT (EGOV 2018), 2018, 11020 : 169 - 183
  • [6] Document analysis in health policy research: the READ approach
    Dalglish, Sarah L.
    Khalid, Hina
    McMahon, Shannon A.
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY AND PLANNING, 2020, 35 (10) : 1424 - 1431
  • [7] Dean AG., 2014, OPENEPI VERSION 3 0
  • [8] GUILD: GUidance for Information about Linking Data sets
    Gilbert, Ruth
    Lafferty, Rosemary
    Hagger-Johnson, Gareth
    Harron, Katie
    Zhang, Li-Chun
    Smith, Peter
    Dibben, Chris
    Goldstein, Harvey
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2018, 40 (01) : 191 - 198
  • [9] Development of a data utility framework to support effective health data curation
    Gordon, Ben
    Barrett, Jake
    Fennessy, Clara
    Cake, Caroline
    Milward, Adam
    Irwin, Courtney
    Jones, Monica
    Sebire, Neil
    [J]. BMJ HEALTH & CARE INFORMATICS, 2021, 28 (01)
  • [10] Gregory K., 2020, HARVARD DATA SCI REV, V2, P2