Data sources for precision public health of obesity: a scoping review, evidence map and use case in Queensland, Australia.
Decision making
Medical informatics
Noncommunicable diseases
Obesity
Public health
Public health informatics
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 03 2022
24 03 2022
Historique:
received:
15
11
2021
accepted:
07
03
2022
entrez:
25
3
2022
pubmed:
26
3
2022
medline:
10
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Global action to reduce obesity prevalence requires digital transformation of the public health sector to enable precision public health (PPH). Useable data for PPH of obesity is yet to be identified, collated and appraised and there is currently no accepted approach to creating this single source of truth. This scoping review aims to address this globally generic problem by using the State of Queensland (Australia) (population > 5 million) as a use case to determine (1) availability of primary data sources usable for PPH for obesity (2) quality of identified sources (3) general implications for public health policymakers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was followed. Unique search strategies were implemented for 'designed' (e.g. surveys) and 'organic' (e.g. electronic health records) data sources. Only primary sources of data (with stratification to Queensland) with evidence-based determinants of obesity were included. Primary data source type, availability, sample size, frequency of collection and coverage of determinants of obesity were extracted and curated into an evidence map. Data source quality was qualitatively assessed. We identified 38 primary sources of preventive data for obesity: 33 designed and 5 organic. Most designed sources were survey (n 20) or administrative (n 10) sources and publicly available but generally were not contemporaneous (> 2 years old) and had small sample sizes (10-100 k) relative to organic sources (> 1 M). Organic sources were identified as the electronic medical record (ieMR), wearables, environmental (Google Maps, Crime Map) and billing/claims. Data on social, biomedical and behavioural determinants of obesity typically co-occurred across sources. Environmental and commercial data was sparse and interpreted as low quality. One organic source (ieMR) was highly contemporaneous (routinely updated), had a large sample size (5 M) and represented all determinants of obesity but is not currently used for public health decision-making in Queensland. This review provides a (1) comprehensive data map for PPH for obesity in Queensland and (2) globally translatable framework to identify, collate and appraise primary data sources to advance PPH for obesity and other noncommunicable diseases. Significant challenges must be addressed to achieve PPH, including: using designed and organic data harmoniously, digital infrastructure for high-quality organic data, and the ethical and social implications of using consumer-centred health data to improve public health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Global action to reduce obesity prevalence requires digital transformation of the public health sector to enable precision public health (PPH). Useable data for PPH of obesity is yet to be identified, collated and appraised and there is currently no accepted approach to creating this single source of truth. This scoping review aims to address this globally generic problem by using the State of Queensland (Australia) (population > 5 million) as a use case to determine (1) availability of primary data sources usable for PPH for obesity (2) quality of identified sources (3) general implications for public health policymakers.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was followed. Unique search strategies were implemented for 'designed' (e.g. surveys) and 'organic' (e.g. electronic health records) data sources. Only primary sources of data (with stratification to Queensland) with evidence-based determinants of obesity were included. Primary data source type, availability, sample size, frequency of collection and coverage of determinants of obesity were extracted and curated into an evidence map. Data source quality was qualitatively assessed.
RESULTS
We identified 38 primary sources of preventive data for obesity: 33 designed and 5 organic. Most designed sources were survey (n 20) or administrative (n 10) sources and publicly available but generally were not contemporaneous (> 2 years old) and had small sample sizes (10-100 k) relative to organic sources (> 1 M). Organic sources were identified as the electronic medical record (ieMR), wearables, environmental (Google Maps, Crime Map) and billing/claims. Data on social, biomedical and behavioural determinants of obesity typically co-occurred across sources. Environmental and commercial data was sparse and interpreted as low quality. One organic source (ieMR) was highly contemporaneous (routinely updated), had a large sample size (5 M) and represented all determinants of obesity but is not currently used for public health decision-making in Queensland.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides a (1) comprehensive data map for PPH for obesity in Queensland and (2) globally translatable framework to identify, collate and appraise primary data sources to advance PPH for obesity and other noncommunicable diseases. Significant challenges must be addressed to achieve PPH, including: using designed and organic data harmoniously, digital infrastructure for high-quality organic data, and the ethical and social implications of using consumer-centred health data to improve public health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35331189
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12939-x
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-12939-x
pmc: PMC8953390
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
584Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1135-1159
pubmed: 33069324
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Dec;4(12):e895-e896
pubmed: 27855860
Innov Clin Neurosci. 2020 Oct 01;17(10-12):24-30
pubmed: 33898098
Front Public Health. 2018 Mar 07;6:68
pubmed: 29594091
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Mar 5;21(1):200
pubmed: 33663508
Eur J Public Health. 2019 Oct 1;29(Supplement_3):28-35
pubmed: 31738441
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143
pubmed: 30453902
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
Aust J Gen Pract. 2020 Apr;49(4):226-230
pubmed: 32233351
Popul Health Manag. 2018 Aug;21(4):261-270
pubmed: 29035630
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
JAMA. 2019 Dec 17;322(23):2283-2284
pubmed: 31755902
Obes Rev. 2017 Jul;18(7):715-723
pubmed: 28489290
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 13;9(9):e030279
pubmed: 31519678
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2015 Mar 27;2(4):1175
pubmed: 25995990
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Dec 10;3(1):158
pubmed: 33303889
Aust Health Rev. 2021 Dec 10;:
pubmed: 34882538
Aust Health Rev. 2019 Jan;43(6):656-661
pubmed: 30384880
Aust Health Rev. 2018 Jun;42(3):294-298
pubmed: 28514640
Med J Aust. 2016 Nov 7;205(9):386-389
pubmed: 27809727