对维多利亚州政府健康信息资产网站的文件分析,以确定澳大利亚数据共享和重复使用文件的可用性。

Merilyn F Riley, Kerin Robinson, Monique F Kilkenny, Sandy G Leggat
{"title":"对维多利亚州政府健康信息资产网站的文件分析,以确定澳大利亚数据共享和重复使用文件的可用性。","authors":"Merilyn F Riley,&nbsp;Kerin Robinson,&nbsp;Monique F Kilkenny,&nbsp;Sandy G Leggat","doi":"10.1177/18333583231197756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review government health information asset websites to ascertain the extent of readily available, explanatory documentation for researcher sharing and reuse of these data.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%, <i>p</i> = 0.024). Compared with government-curated websites, other agency websites were more likely to provide information on research requests/outputs (80% vs 7%, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":" ","pages":"18333583231197756"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A documentary analysis of Victorian Government health information assets' websites to identify availability of documentation for data sharing and reuse in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Merilyn F Riley,&nbsp;Kerin Robinson,&nbsp;Monique F Kilkenny,&nbsp;Sandy G Leggat\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/18333583231197756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review government health information asset websites to ascertain the extent of readily available, explanatory documentation for researcher sharing and reuse of these data.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%, <i>p</i> = 0.024). Compared with government-curated websites, other agency websites were more likely to provide information on research requests/outputs (80% vs 7%, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"18333583231197756\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583231197756\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583231197756","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:卫生数据共享对于监测疾病、政策和实践以及规划卫生服务非常重要。如果健康数据用于次要目的,则需要提供信息以帮助重用。目的:审查政府健康信息资产网站,以确定研究人员共享和重复使用这些数据的现成解释性文件的范围。方法:在澳大利亚选定的维多利亚州政府健康信息资产网站上进行文献分析。获得了九类信息的数据:数据保管人;数据上下文;数据字典;质量控制;数据质量;局限性访问过程;隐私/保密/安全和研究请求/输出。信息类别按数据集类型(行政或人口健康)和管理组织(政府或其他机构)进行比较。采用描述性统计。结果:在接受调查的25个网站中,大多数提供了有关数据保管人(96%)和数据上下文(92%)的信息。三分之二的人报告了访问过程(68%)和隐私/保密/安全信息(64%)。与人口健康网站相比,行政数据集网站更有可能提供数据字典访问(67%对50%)和质量控制信息(56%对44%),但不太可能提供访问过程信息(56%和75%)和研究请求/输出信息(0%对56%,p = 0.024)。与政府策划的网站相比,其他机构网站更有可能提供研究请求/产出的信息(80%对7%,p 结论:研究人员可重复使用维多利亚州政府健康数据集的解释性文件不一致。重要的是,关于数据质量或数据集限制的信息不足。研究策划的数据集网站在显示研究请求或产出方面明显更加透明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A documentary analysis of Victorian Government health information assets' websites to identify availability of documentation for data sharing and reuse in Australia.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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