Health-Related Data Sources Accessible to Health Researchers From the US Government: Mapping Review.

big data data collection data set data sets as topic data source federal government government health research health surveys mapping review open data public domain questionnaire review method survey systematic review

Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 04 2023
Historique:
received: 25 10 2022
accepted: 31 03 2023
revised: 26 12 2022
medline: 1 5 2023
pubmed: 27 4 2023
entrez: 27 4 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Big data from large, government-sponsored surveys and data sets offers researchers opportunities to conduct population-based studies of important health issues in the United States, as well as develop preliminary data to support proposed future work. Yet, navigating these national data sources is challenging. Despite the widespread availability of national data, there is little guidance for researchers on how to access and evaluate the use of these resources. Our aim was to identify and summarize a comprehensive list of federally sponsored, health- and health care-related data sources that are accessible in the public domain in order to facilitate their use by researchers. We conducted a systematic mapping review of government sources of health-related data on US populations and with active or recent (previous 10 years) data collection. The key measures were government sponsor, overview and purpose of data, population of interest, sampling design, sample size, data collection methodology, type and description of data, and cost to obtain data. Convergent synthesis was used to aggregate findings. Among 106 unique data sources, 57 met the inclusion criteria. Data sources were classified as survey or assessment data (n=30, 53%), trends data (n=27, 47%), summative processed data (n=27, 47%), primary registry data (n=17, 30%), and evaluative data (n=11, 19%). Most (n=39, 68%) served more than 1 purpose. The population of interest included individuals/patients (n=40, 70%), providers (n=15, 26%), and health care sites and systems (n=14, 25%). The sources collected data on demographic (n=44, 77%) and clinical information (n=35, 61%), health behaviors (n=24, 42%), provider or practice characteristics (n=22, 39%), health care costs (n=17, 30%), and laboratory tests (n=8, 14%). Most (n=43, 75%) offered free data sets. A broad scope of national health data is accessible to researchers. These data provide insights into important health issues and the nation's health care system while eliminating the burden of primary data collection. Data standardization and uniformity were uncommon across government entities, highlighting a need to improve data consistency. Secondary analyses of national data are a feasible, cost-efficient means to address national health concerns.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Big data from large, government-sponsored surveys and data sets offers researchers opportunities to conduct population-based studies of important health issues in the United States, as well as develop preliminary data to support proposed future work. Yet, navigating these national data sources is challenging. Despite the widespread availability of national data, there is little guidance for researchers on how to access and evaluate the use of these resources.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to identify and summarize a comprehensive list of federally sponsored, health- and health care-related data sources that are accessible in the public domain in order to facilitate their use by researchers.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic mapping review of government sources of health-related data on US populations and with active or recent (previous 10 years) data collection. The key measures were government sponsor, overview and purpose of data, population of interest, sampling design, sample size, data collection methodology, type and description of data, and cost to obtain data. Convergent synthesis was used to aggregate findings.
RESULTS
Among 106 unique data sources, 57 met the inclusion criteria. Data sources were classified as survey or assessment data (n=30, 53%), trends data (n=27, 47%), summative processed data (n=27, 47%), primary registry data (n=17, 30%), and evaluative data (n=11, 19%). Most (n=39, 68%) served more than 1 purpose. The population of interest included individuals/patients (n=40, 70%), providers (n=15, 26%), and health care sites and systems (n=14, 25%). The sources collected data on demographic (n=44, 77%) and clinical information (n=35, 61%), health behaviors (n=24, 42%), provider or practice characteristics (n=22, 39%), health care costs (n=17, 30%), and laboratory tests (n=8, 14%). Most (n=43, 75%) offered free data sets.
CONCLUSIONS
A broad scope of national health data is accessible to researchers. These data provide insights into important health issues and the nation's health care system while eliminating the burden of primary data collection. Data standardization and uniformity were uncommon across government entities, highlighting a need to improve data consistency. Secondary analyses of national data are a feasible, cost-efficient means to address national health concerns.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37103987
pii: v25i1e43802
doi: 10.2196/43802
pmc: PMC10176148
doi:

Types de publication

Systematic Review Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e43802

Informations de copyright

©Ann Annis, Crista Reaves, Jessica Sender, Sherry Bumpus. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 27.04.2023.

Références

EGEMS (Wash DC). 2017 Dec 15;5(3):9
pubmed: 29881758
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2008;22(4):306-11
pubmed: 21923316
Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15;3:160018
pubmed: 26978244
BMJ. 2018 Dec 28;363:k5357
pubmed: 30593447
Urol Oncol. 2018 Apr;36(4):165-173
pubmed: 28911923
Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 23;6(1):61
pubmed: 28335799
Urol Oncol. 2018 Apr;36(4):174-182
pubmed: 29146037
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Nov;35(11):3342-3345
pubmed: 32394140
Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108
pubmed: 19490148
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:437-452
pubmed: 29272166
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016 Mar 31;4(2):1204
pubmed: 27141517
JMIR Med Inform. 2014 Jan 17;2(1):e1
pubmed: 25600256

Auteurs

Ann Annis (A)

College of Nursing, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Institute for Health Policy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.

Crista Reaves (C)

College of Nursing, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.

Jessica Sender (J)

University Libraries, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.

Sherry Bumpus (S)

School of Nursing, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH