Data systems linking social determinants of health with health outcomes: advancing public goods to support research and evidence-based policy and programs

Interoperability of health data using FHIR Mapping Language: transforming HL7 CDA to FHIR with reusable visual components

Introduction

Ecosystem-centered healthcare innovations, such as digital health platforms, patient-centric records, and mobile health applications, depend on the semantic interoperability of health data. This ensures efficient, patient-focused healthcare delivery in a mobile world where citizens frequently travel for work and leisure. Beyond healthcare delivery, semantic interoperability is crucial for secondary health data use. This paper introduces a tool and techniques for achieving health data semantic interoperability, using reusable visual transformation components to create and validate transformation rules and maps, making them usable for domain experts with minimal technical skills.

Methods

The tool and techniques for health data semantic interoperability have been developed and validated using Design Science, a common methodology for developing software artifacts, including tools and techniques.

Results

Our tool and techniques are designed to facilitate the interoperability of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) by enabling the seamless unification of various health data formats in real time, without the need for extensive physical data migrations. These tools simplify complex health data transformations, allowing domain experts to specify and validate intricate data transformation rules and maps. The need for such a solution arises from the ongoing transition of the Estonian National Health Information System (ENHIS) from Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) to Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), but it is general enough to be used for other data transformation needs, including the European Health Data Space (EHDS) ecosystem.

Conclusion

The proposed tool and techniques simplify health data transformation by allowing domain experts to specify and validate the necessary data transformation rules and maps. Evaluation by ENHIS domain experts demonstrated the usability, effectiveness, and business value of the tool and techniques.

The Social Data Foundation model: Facilitating health and social care transformation through datatrust services

Turning the wealth of health and social data into insights to promote better public health, while enabling more effective personalized care, is critically important for society. In particular, social determinants of health have a significant impact on individual health, well-being, and inequalities in health. However, concerns around accessing and processing such sensitive data, and linking different datasets, involve significant challenges, not least to demonstrate trustworthiness to all stakeholders. Emerging datatrust services provide an opportunity to address key barriers to health and social care data linkage schemes, specifically a loss of control experienced by data providers, including the difficulty to maintain a remote reidentification risk over time, and the challenge of establishing and maintaining a social license. Datatrust services are a sociotechnical evolution that advances databases and data management systems, and brings together stakeholder-sensitive data governance mechanisms with data services to create a trusted research environment. In this article, we explore the requirements for datatrust services, a proposed implementation—the Social Data Foundation, and an illustrative test case. Moving forward, such an approach would help incentivize, accelerate, and join up the sharing of regulated data, and the use of generated outputs safely amongst stakeholders, including healthcare providers, social care providers, researchers, public health authorities, and citizens.

Combining Nonclinical Determinants of Health and Clinical Data for Research and Evaluation: Rapid Review

Background

Nonclinical determinants of health are of increasing importance to health care delivery and health policy. Concurrent with growing interest in better addressing patients’ nonmedical issues is the exponential growth in availability of data sources that provide insight into these nonclinical determinants of health.

Objective

This review aimed to characterize the state of the existing literature on the use of nonclinical health indicators in conjunction with clinical data sources.

Methods

We conducted a rapid review of articles and relevant agency publications published in English. Eligible studies described the effect of, the methods for, or the need for combining nonclinical data with clinical data and were published in the United States between January 2010 and April 2018. Additional reports were obtained by manual searching. Records were screened for inclusion in 2 rounds by 4 trained reviewers with interrater reliability checks. From each article, we abstracted the measures, data sources, and level of measurement (individual or aggregate) for each nonclinical determinant of health reported.

Results

A total of 178 articles were included in the review. The articles collectively reported on 744 different nonclinical determinants of health measures. Measures related to socioeconomic status and material conditions were most prevalent (included in 90% of articles), followed by the closely related domain of social circumstances (included in 25% of articles), reflecting the widespread availability and use of standard demographic measures such as household income, marital status, education, race, and ethnicity in public health surveillance. Measures related to health-related behaviors (eg, smoking, diet, tobacco, and substance abuse), the built environment (eg, transportation, sidewalks, and buildings), natural environment (eg, air quality and pollution), and health services and conditions (eg, provider of care supply, utilization, and disease prevalence) were less common, whereas measures related to public policies were rare. When combining nonclinical and clinical data, a majority of studies associated aggregate, area-level nonclinical measures with individual-level clinical data by matching geographical location.

Conclusions

A variety of nonclinical determinants of health measures have been widely but unevenly used in conjunction with clinical data to support population health research.

Informatics can help providers incorporate context into care

Most determinants of health originate from the “contexts” in which we live, which has remained outside the confines of the U.S. healthcare system. This issue has left providers unprepared to operate with an ample understanding of the challenges patients may face beyond their purview. The recent shift to value-based care and increasing prevalence of Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems provide opportunities to incorporate upstream contextual factors into care. We discuss that incorporating context into care is hindered by a chicken-and-egg dilemma – ie, lack of evidence on the utility of contextual data at the point of care, where contextual data are missing due to the lack of an informatics infrastructure. We argue that if we build the informatics infrastructure today, EHRs can give the tomorrow’s clinicians the tools and the data they need to transform the U.S. healthcare from episodic and reactive to preventive and proactive. We also discuss system design considerations to improve efficacy of the suggested informatics infrastructure, which include systematically prioritizing contextual data domains, developing interoperability standards, and ensuring that integration of contextual data does not disrupt clinicians’ workflow.

The feasibility of measuring and monitoring social determinants of health and the relevance for policy and programme - a qualitative assessment of four countries

Background

Since the publication of the reports by the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), many research papers have documented inequities, explaining causal pathways in order to inform policy and programmatic decision-making. At the international level, the sustainable development goals (SDGs) reflect an attempt to bring together these themes and the complexities involved in defining a comprehensive development framework. However, to date, much less has been done to address the monitoring challenges, that is, how data generation, analysis and use are to become routine tasks.

Objective

To test proposed indicators of social determinants of health (SDH), gender, equity, and human rights with respect to their relevance in tracking progress in universal health coverage and population health (level and distribution).

Design

In an attempt to explore these monitoring challenges, indicators covering a wide range of social determinants were tested in four country case studies (Bangladesh, Brazil, South Africa, and Vietnam) for their technical feasibility, reliability, and validity, and their communicability and usefulness to policy-makers. Twelve thematic domains with 20 core indicators covering different aspects of equity, human rights, gender, and SDH were tested through a review of data sources, descriptive analyses, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. To test the communicability and usefulness of the domains, domain narratives that explained the causal pathways were presented to policy-makers, managers, the media, and civil society leaders.

Results

For most countries, monitoring is possible, as some data were available for most of the core indicators. However, a qualitative assessment showed that technical feasibility, reliability, and validity varied across indicators and countries. Producing understandable and useful information proved challenging, and particularly so in translating indicator definitions and data into meaningful lay and managerial narratives, and effectively communicating links to health and ways in which the information could improve decision-making.

Conclusions

This exercise revealed that for monitoring to produce reliable data collection, analysis, and discourse, it will need to be adapted to each national context and institutionalised into national systems. This will require that capacities and resources for this and subsequent communication of results are increased across countries for both national and international monitoring, including the successful implementation of the SDGs.

Measurement of Health Disparities, Health Inequities, and Social Determinants of Health to Support the Advancement of Health Equity

Reduction of health disparities and advancement of health equity in the United States require high-quality data indicative of where the nation stands vis-à-vis health equity, as well as proper analytic tools to facilitate accurate interpretation of these data. This article opens with an overview of health equity and social determinants of health. It then proposes a set of recommended practices in measurement of health disparities, health inequities, and social determinants of health at the national level to support the advancement of health equity, highlighting that (1) differences in health and its determinants that are associated with social position are important to assess; (2) social and structural determinants of health should be assessed and multiple levels of measurement should be considered; (3) the rationale for methodological choices made and measures chosen should be made explicit; (4) groups to be compared should be simultaneously classified by multiple social statuses; and (5) stakeholders and their communication needs can often be considered in the selection of analytic methods. Although much is understood about the role of social determinants of health in shaping the health of populations, researchers should continue to advance understanding of the pathways through which they operate on particular health outcomes. There is still much to learn and implement about how to measure health disparities, health inequities, and social determinants of health at the national level, and the challenges of health equity persist. We anticipate that the present discussion will contribute to the laying of a foundation for standard practice in the monitoring of national progress toward achievement of health equity.

Priorities for research on equity and health: towards an equity-focused health research agenda

Piroska Östlin and colleagues argue that a paradigm shift is needed to keep the focus on health equity within the social determinants of health research agenda.