The use of routinely collected patient data for research: a critical review

Persuasive Appeals in Genetic Biobank Recruitment Campaigns: Social and Ethical Implications

The social and ethical implications of large-scale biobank donor recruitment campaigns have remained understudied. We use two recent campaigns of the population-based genetic biobank in Estonia as an example to demonstrate how campaign spokespersons try to persuade potential donors by appealing to (1) gaining self-knowledge, (2) gaining control over one's health, (3) fear of illness, (4) contributing to healthcare, (5) contributing to science, and (6) contributing to one's country. While these campaigns succeeded in recruiting 15 percent of the country's adult population as donors, we explain how the use of some of these appeals may (a) create unrealistic expectations regarding the benefits donors could receive and (b) conceal the risks regarding health data. The study lays a necessary groundwork for future empirical research on the ethics of biobank recruitment campaigns.

Using primary care databases for addiction research: An introduction and overview of strengths and weaknesses

Primary care databases extract and combine routine data from the electronic patient records of various participating practices on a regular basis. These databases can be used for innovative and relevant addiction research, but such use requires a thorough understanding of how data were originally collected and how they need to be processed and statistically analysed to produce sound scientific evidence. The aims of this paper are therefore to (1) make a case for why primary care databases should be considered more frequently for addiction research; (2) provide an overview of how primary care databases are constructed; (3) highlight important methodological and statistical strengths and weaknesses of using primary care databases for research; and (4) give practical advice about how a researcher can get access to databases. Three major primary care databases from the UK serve as examples: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), and QResearch.

Using datasets to ascertain the generalisability of clinical cohorts: the example of European QUALity Study on the treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (EQUAL)

BACKGROUND

Cohort studies are among the most robust of observational studies but have issues with external validity. This study assesses threats to external validity (generalisability) in the European QUALity (EQUAL) study, a cohort study of people over 65 years with stage 4/5 chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

Patients meeting the EQUAL inclusion criteria were identified in The Health Improvement Network database and stratified into those attending renal units (secondary care cohort-SCC) and not (primary care cohort-PCC). Survival, progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT), and hospitalisation were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 250, 633, and 2,464 patients in EQUAL, PCC, and SCC. EQUAL had a higher proportion of men in comparison to PCC and SCC (60.0% vs. 34.8% vs. 51.4%). Increasing age (≥85 years odds ratio (OR) 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.40)) and comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 4 OR 0.69 (CI 0.52-0.91)) were associated with non-participation in EQUAL. EQUAL had a higher proportion of patients starting RRT at 1 year compared to SCC (8.1% vs. 2.1%%, p < 0.001). Patients in the PCC and SCC had increased risk of Hospitalisation (incidence rate ratio=1.76 (95% CI 1.27-2.47) & 2.13 (95% CI 1.59-2.86)) and mortality at one year (hazard ratio=3.48 (95% CI 2.1-5.7) & 1.7 (95% CI 1.1-2.7)) compared to EQUAL.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of how participants in a cohort study can differ from the broader population of patients, which is essential when considering external validity and applying to local practice.

Developing routinely recorded clinical data from electronic patient records as a national resource to improve neonatal health care: the Medicines for Neonates research programme

Background

Clinical data offer the potential to advance patient care. Neonatal specialised care is a high-cost NHS service received by approximately 80,000 newborn infants each year.

Objectives

(1) To develop the use of routinely recorded operational clinical data from electronic patient records (EPRs), secure national coverage, evaluate and improve the quality of clinical data, and develop their use as a national resource to improve neonatal health care and outcomes. To test the hypotheses that (2) clinical and research data are of comparable quality, (3) routine NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years reliably identifies children with neurodevelopmental impairment and (4) trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be reliably conducted using clinical data. (5) To test methods to link NHS data sets and (6) to evaluate parent views of personal data in research.

Design

Six inter-related workstreams; quarterly extractions of predefined data from neonatal EPRs; and approvals from the National Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group, Caldicott Guardians and lead neonatal clinicians of participating NHS trusts.

Setting

NHS neonatal units.

Participants

Neonatal clinical teams; parents of babies admitted to NHS neonatal units.

Interventions

In workstream 3, we employed the Bayley-III scales to evaluate neurodevelopmental status and the Quantitative Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Q-CHAT) to evaluate social communication skills. In workstream 6, we recruited parents with previous experience of a child in neonatal care to assist in the design of a questionnaire directed at the parents of infants admitted to neonatal units.

Data sources

Data were extracted from the EPR of admissions to NHS neonatal units.

Main outcome measures

We created a National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) containing a defined extract from real-time, point-of-care, clinician-entered EPRs from all NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland (n = 200), established a UK Neonatal Collaborative of all NHS trusts providing neonatal specialised care, and created a new NHS information standard: the Neonatal Data Set (ISB 1595) (see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1595/amd-32–2012/index_html; accessed 25 June 2018).

Results

We found low discordance between clinical (NNRD) and research data for most important infant and maternal characteristics, and higher prevalence of clinical outcomes. Compared with research assessments, NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years has lower sensitivity but higher specificity for identifying children with neurodevelopmental impairment. Completeness and quality are higher for clinical than for administrative NHS data; linkage is feasible and substantially enhances data quality and scope. The majority of hospital resource inputs for economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be extracted reliably from the NNRD. In general, there is strong parent support for sharing routine clinical data for research purposes.

Limitations

We were only able to include data from all English neonatal units from 2012 onwards and conduct only limited cross validation of NNRD data directly against data in paper case notes. We were unable to conduct qualitative analyses of parent perspectives. We were also only able to assess the utility of trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions using a single trial. We suggest that results should be validated against other trials.

Conclusions

We show that it is possible to obtain research-standard data from neonatal EPRs, and achieve complete population coverage, but we highlight the importance of implementing systematic examination of NHS data quality and completeness and testing methods to improve these measures. Currently available EPR data do not enable ascertainment of neurodevelopmental outcomes reliably in very preterm infants. Measures to maintain high quality and completeness of clinical and administrative data are important health service goals. As parent support for sharing clinical data for research is underpinned by strong altruistic motivation, improving wider public understanding of benefits may enhance informed decision-making.

Future work

We aim to implement a new paradigm for newborn health care in which continuous incremental improvement is achieved efficiently and cost-effectively by close integration of evidence generation with clinical care through the use of high-quality EPR data. In future work, we aim to automate completeness and quality checks and make recording processes more ‘user friendly’ and constructed in ways that minimise the likelihood of missing or erroneous entries. The development of criteria that provide assurance that data conform to prespecified completeness and quality criteria would be an important development. The benefits of EPR data might be extended by testing their use in large pragmatic clinical trials. It would also be of value to develop methods to quality assure EPR data including involving parents, and link the NNRD to other health, social care and educational data sets to facilitate the acquisition of lifelong outcomes across multiple domains.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017439 (workstream 1) and PROSPERO CRD42012002168 (workstream 3).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (£1,641,471). Unrestricted donations were supplied by Abbott Laboratories (Maidenhead, UK: £35,000), Nutricia Research Foundation (Schiphol, the Netherlands: £15,000), GE Healthcare (Amersham, UK: £1000). A grant to support the use of routinely collected, standardised, electronic clinical data for audit, management and multidisciplinary feedback in neonatal medicine was received from the Department of Health and Social Care (£135,494).

Staff and service users' views on a 'Consent for Contact' research register within psychosis services: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to mental health research can be challenging. 'Consent for Contact' (C4C) is a novel framework which may expedite recruitment and contribute to equitable access to research. This paper discusses stakeholder perspectives on using a C4C model in services for people with psychosis.

METHOD

This is a cross sectional study investigating the views of service users and staff using qualitative methods. Eight focus groups were recruited: five with service users (n = 26) and three with clinicians (n = 17). Purposive sampling was applied in order to reflect the local population in terms of ethnicity, experience of psychiatric services and attitudes towards research.

RESULTS

Staff and service users alike associated the principle of 'consent for contact' with greater service user autonomy and favourable conditions for research recruitment. Fears around coercion and inappropriate uses of clinical records were common and most marked in service users identifying as having a negative view to research participation. Staff working in inpatient services reported that consenting for future contact might contribute to paranoid ideation. All groups agreed that implementation should highlight safeguards and the opt-in nature of the register.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff and service users responded positively to C4C. Clinicians explaining C4C to service users should allay anxieties around coercion, degree of commitment, and use of records. For some service users, researcher access to records is likely to be the most challenging aspect of the consultation.