Implementation of data access and use procedures in clinical data warehouses. A systematic review of literature and publicly available policies.
Clinical data warehouse
Data access and use
Data sharing
Ethics
Governance
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 07 2020
11 07 2020
Historique:
received:
06
02
2020
accepted:
02
07
2020
entrez:
13
7
2020
pubmed:
13
7
2020
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The promises of improved health care and health research through data-intensive applications rely on a growing amount of health data. At the core of large-scale data integration efforts, clinical data warehouses (CDW) are also responsible for data governance, managing data access and (re)use. As the complexity of the data flow increases, greater transparency and standardization of criteria and procedures are required in order to maintain objective oversight and control. Therefore, the development of practice oriented and evidence-based policies is crucial. This study assessed the spectrum of data access and use criteria and procedures in clinical data warehouses governance internationally. We performed a systematic review of (a) the published scientific literature on CDW and (b) publicly available information on CDW data access, e.g., data access policies. A qualitative thematic analysis was applied to all included literature and policies. Twenty-three scientific publications and one policy document were included in the final analysis. The qualitative analysis led to a final set of three main thematic categories: (1) requirements, including recipient requirements, reuse requirements, and formal requirements; (2) structures and processes, including review bodies and review values; and (3) access, including access limitations. The description of data access and use governance in the scientific literature is characterized by a high level of heterogeneity and ambiguity. In practice, this might limit the effective data sharing needed to fulfil the high expectations of data-intensive approaches in medical research and health care. The lack of publicly available information on access policies conflicts with ethical requirements linked to principles of transparency and accountability. CDW should publicly disclose by whom and under which conditions data can be accessed, and provide designated governance structures and policies to increase transparency on data access. The results of this review may contribute to the development of practice-oriented minimal standards for the governance of data access, which could also result in a stronger harmonization, efficiency, and effectiveness of CDW.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The promises of improved health care and health research through data-intensive applications rely on a growing amount of health data. At the core of large-scale data integration efforts, clinical data warehouses (CDW) are also responsible for data governance, managing data access and (re)use. As the complexity of the data flow increases, greater transparency and standardization of criteria and procedures are required in order to maintain objective oversight and control. Therefore, the development of practice oriented and evidence-based policies is crucial. This study assessed the spectrum of data access and use criteria and procedures in clinical data warehouses governance internationally.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of (a) the published scientific literature on CDW and (b) publicly available information on CDW data access, e.g., data access policies. A qualitative thematic analysis was applied to all included literature and policies.
RESULTS
Twenty-three scientific publications and one policy document were included in the final analysis. The qualitative analysis led to a final set of three main thematic categories: (1) requirements, including recipient requirements, reuse requirements, and formal requirements; (2) structures and processes, including review bodies and review values; and (3) access, including access limitations.
CONCLUSIONS
The description of data access and use governance in the scientific literature is characterized by a high level of heterogeneity and ambiguity. In practice, this might limit the effective data sharing needed to fulfil the high expectations of data-intensive approaches in medical research and health care. The lack of publicly available information on access policies conflicts with ethical requirements linked to principles of transparency and accountability. CDW should publicly disclose by whom and under which conditions data can be accessed, and provide designated governance structures and policies to increase transparency on data access. The results of this review may contribute to the development of practice-oriented minimal standards for the governance of data access, which could also result in a stronger harmonization, efficiency, and effectiveness of CDW.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32652989
doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01177-z
pii: 10.1186/s12911-020-01177-z
pmc: PMC7353743
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
157Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 01ZZ1802C
Pays : International
Références
Healthc Inform Res. 2014 Apr;20(2):109-16
pubmed: 24872909
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2014 Jul 24;2(2):1069
pubmed: 25848606
Sci Transl Med. 2012 Dec 19;4(165):165cm15
pubmed: 23253606
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:303-307
pubmed: 29295104
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 May;37(5):702-709
pubmed: 29733719
Biopreserv Biobank. 2016 Dec;14(6):559-562
pubmed: 27936342
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 5;370(23):2161-3
pubmed: 24897079
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov 14;2009:370-4
pubmed: 20351882
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jul;57(S 01):e46-e49
pubmed: 30016817
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jul;57(S 01):e82-e91
pubmed: 30016814
Yearb Med Inform. 2017 Aug;26(1):38-52
pubmed: 28480475
J Dent Educ. 2010 Oct;74(10):1051-65
pubmed: 20930236
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Jul-Aug;21(4):730-6
pubmed: 24682495
J Med Genet. 2019 Mar;56(3):176-185
pubmed: 30464052
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2014 Mar 24;2(1):1049
pubmed: 25848584
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Int J Med Inform. 2006 Mar-Apr;75(3-4):232-9
pubmed: 16153886
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Oct;84(10):763-73
pubmed: 26138036
Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 Nov;26(11):1572-1581
pubmed: 30089824
Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct;45(5 Pt 2):1442-55
pubmed: 21054365
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 01;6(3):e008721
pubmed: 26932138
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Jul;33(7):1229-35
pubmed: 25006150
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2014 Dec 09;2(1):1099
pubmed: 25848595
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2014 Jul 21;2(3):1068
pubmed: 25848612
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012;2012:189-98
pubmed: 23304288
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Dec;34(12):2174-80
pubmed: 26561387
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Mar-Apr;28(2):454-66
pubmed: 19276005
Learn Health Syst. 2019 Mar 25;3(3):e10191
pubmed: 31317072
Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Jan 1;96(1):66-68
pubmed: 29403102
Cancer Inform. 2017 Mar 02;16:1176935117694349
pubmed: 28469389
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Sep 04;9:157
pubmed: 19732426
J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Dec;14(4):501-513
pubmed: 28983835
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Mar-Apr;17(2):131-5
pubmed: 20190054
Nat Rev Genet. 2012 May 02;13(6):395-405
pubmed: 22549152
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov 14;2009:391-5
pubmed: 20351886
Sci Transl Med. 2010 Nov 10;2(57):57cm29
pubmed: 21068440
J Biomed Inform. 2011 Apr;44(2):266-76
pubmed: 21130181
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):1136-40
pubmed: 24993547
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jun;102:21-28
pubmed: 28495345
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2014 Oct 14;2(3):1097
pubmed: 25848623
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jul;57(S 01):e66-e81
pubmed: 30016813
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jul;57(S 01):e57-e65
pubmed: 30016812
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Feb;25(3):293-300
pubmed: 28000694
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Jun;49:3-8
pubmed: 24680985
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016 Dec 06;4(1):1245
pubmed: 28154834
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jul;57(S 01):e92-e105
pubmed: 30016815
JAMA. 2019 Jun 18;321(23):2281-2282
pubmed: 31107500