The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-02 DOI:10.1177/17407745231225618
Salma Fahridin, Neeru Agarwal, Karen Bracken, Stephen Law, Rachael L Morton
{"title":"The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review.","authors":"Salma Fahridin, Neeru Agarwal, Karen Bracken, Stephen Law, Rachael L Morton","doi":"10.1177/17407745231225618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The demand for simplified data collection within trials to increase efficiency and reduce costs has led to broader interest in repurposing routinely collected administrative data for use in clinical trials research. The aim of this scoping review is to describe how and why administrative data have been used in Australian randomised controlled trial conduct and analyses, specifically the advantages and limitations of their use as well as barriers and enablers to accessing administrative data for use alongside randomised controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases were searched to November 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they accessed one or more Australian administrative data sets, where some or all trial participants were enrolled in Australia, and where the article was published between January 2000 and November 2022. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, and the full texts of selected studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles by two reviewers using a data extraction tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-one articles from 36 randomised controlled trials were included. Trial characteristics, including the sample size, disease area, population, and intervention, were varied; however, randomised controlled trials most commonly linked to government reimbursed claims data sets, hospital admissions data sets and birth/death registries, and the most common reason for linkage was to ascertain disease outcomes or survival status, and to track health service use. The majority of randomised controlled trials were able to achieve linkage in over 90% of trial participants; however, consent and participant withdrawals were common limitations to participant linkage. Reported advantages were the reliability and accuracy of the data, the ease of long term follow-up, and the use of established data linkage units. Common reported limitations were locating participants who had moved outside the jurisdictional area, missing data where consent was not provided, and unavailability of certain healthcare data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As linked administrative data are not intended for research purposes, detailed knowledge of the data sets is required by researchers, and the time delay in receiving the data is viewed as a barrier to its use. The lack of access to primary care data sets is viewed as a barrier to administrative data use; however, work to expand the number of healthcare data sets that can be linked has made it easier for researchers to access and use these data, which may have implications on how randomised controlled trials will be run in future.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"516-525"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11304639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231225618","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aims: The demand for simplified data collection within trials to increase efficiency and reduce costs has led to broader interest in repurposing routinely collected administrative data for use in clinical trials research. The aim of this scoping review is to describe how and why administrative data have been used in Australian randomised controlled trial conduct and analyses, specifically the advantages and limitations of their use as well as barriers and enablers to accessing administrative data for use alongside randomised controlled trials.

Methods: Databases were searched to November 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they accessed one or more Australian administrative data sets, where some or all trial participants were enrolled in Australia, and where the article was published between January 2000 and November 2022. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, and the full texts of selected studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles by two reviewers using a data extraction tool.

Results: Forty-one articles from 36 randomised controlled trials were included. Trial characteristics, including the sample size, disease area, population, and intervention, were varied; however, randomised controlled trials most commonly linked to government reimbursed claims data sets, hospital admissions data sets and birth/death registries, and the most common reason for linkage was to ascertain disease outcomes or survival status, and to track health service use. The majority of randomised controlled trials were able to achieve linkage in over 90% of trial participants; however, consent and participant withdrawals were common limitations to participant linkage. Reported advantages were the reliability and accuracy of the data, the ease of long term follow-up, and the use of established data linkage units. Common reported limitations were locating participants who had moved outside the jurisdictional area, missing data where consent was not provided, and unavailability of certain healthcare data.

Conclusions: As linked administrative data are not intended for research purposes, detailed knowledge of the data sets is required by researchers, and the time delay in receiving the data is viewed as a barrier to its use. The lack of access to primary care data sets is viewed as a barrier to administrative data use; however, work to expand the number of healthcare data sets that can be linked has made it easier for researchers to access and use these data, which may have implications on how randomised controlled trials will be run in future.

澳大利亚随机对照试验中关联管理数据的使用:范围综述。
背景/目的:为了提高效率和降低成本,需要简化试验中的数据收集,这使得人们对将常规收集的管理数据重新用于临床试验研究产生了更广泛的兴趣。本范围综述旨在描述行政数据如何以及为何被用于澳大利亚随机对照试验的开展和分析,特别是使用行政数据的优势和局限性,以及获取行政数据用于随机对照试验的障碍和推动因素:对截至 2022 年 11 月的数据库进行了检索。如果随机对照试验使用了一个或多个澳大利亚行政数据集,且部分或全部试验参与者在澳大利亚注册,文章发表于2000年1月至2022年11月期间,则纳入该试验。标题和摘要由两名审稿人独立筛选,入选研究的全文由两名独立审稿人根据资格标准进行评估。两名审稿人使用数据提取工具从纳入的文章中提取数据:结果:共纳入 36 项随机对照试验的 41 篇文章。试验的特点各不相同,包括样本量、疾病领域、人群和干预措施;但是,随机对照试验最常见的是与政府报销的索赔数据集、入院数据集和出生/死亡登记处建立联系,建立联系的最常见原因是确定疾病结果或生存状况,以及跟踪医疗服务的使用情况。大多数随机对照试验都能与 90% 以上的试验参与者建立联系;然而,同意和参与者退出是参与者联系的常见限制因素。据报道,数据的可靠性和准确性、长期随访的便利性以及使用已建立的数据连接单位是试验的优点。所报告的常见局限性包括:查找已迁出管辖区的参与者、在未征得同意的情况下丢失数据以及无法获得某些医疗保健数据:结论:由于链接的行政数据并非用于研究目的,研究人员需要对数据集有详细的了解,而接收数据的时间延迟被视为使用数据的障碍。无法获取初级保健数据集被视为行政数据使用的障碍;然而,扩大可链接的医疗保健数据集数量的工作已使研究人员更容易获取和使用这些数据,这可能会对今后如何开展随机对照试验产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信