Recommended data elements for health registries: a survey from a German funding initiative
-
Published:2024-05-27
Issue:1
Volume:24
Page:
-
ISSN:1472-6947
-
Container-title:BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Author:
Harkener Sonja,Jenetzky Ekkehart,Rupp Rüdiger,Dell Jennifer,Engel Christoph,von Bargen Maximilian Ferry,Finger Robert,Glienke Maximilian,Heinz Carsten,Jersch Patrick,Martin David,Schmutzler Rita,Schönthaler Martin,Suwelack Barbara,Wegner Jeannine,Stausberg Jürgen
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The selection of data elements is a decisive task within the development of a health registry. Having the right metadata is crucial for answering the particular research questions. Furthermore, the set of data elements determines the registries’ readiness of interoperability and data reusability to a major extent. Six health registries shared and published their metadata within a German funding initiative. As one step in the direction of a common set of data elements, a selection of those metadata was evaluated with regard to their appropriateness for a broader usage.
Methods
Each registry was asked to contribute a 10%-selection of their data elements to an evaluation sample. The survey was set up with the online survey tool „LimeSurvey Cloud”. The registries and an accompanying project participated in the survey with one vote for each project. The data elements were offered in content groups along with the question of whether the data element is appropriate for health registries on a broader scale. The question could be answered using a Likert scale with five options. Furthermore, “no answer” was allowed. The level of agreement was assessed using weighted Cohen’s kappa and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.
Results
The evaluation sample consisted of 269 data elements. With a grade of “perhaps recommendable” or higher in the mean, 169 data elements were selected. These data elements belong preferably to groups’ demography, education/occupation, medication, and nutrition. Half of the registries lost significance compared with their percentage of data elements in the evaluation sample, one remained stable. The level of concordance was adequate.
Conclusions
The survey revealed a set of 169 data elements recommended for health registries. When developing a registry, this set could be valuable help in selecting the metadata appropriate to answer the registry’s research questions. However, due to the high specificity of research questions, data elements beyond this set will be needed to cover the whole range of interests of a register. A broader discussion and subsequent surveys are needed to establish a common set of data elements on an international scale.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Essen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference21 articles.
1. Glicklich RE, Leavy MB, Dreyer NA, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. 4th ed. AHRQ Publication No. 19(20)-EHC020. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2020. 2. Stausberg J, Maier B, Bestehorn K, Gothe H, Groene O, Jacke C, Jänicke M, Kostuj T, Mathes T, Niemeyer A, Olbrich K, Schmitt J, Neugebauer E. Memorandum Registry for Health Services Research: Update 2019. Das Gesundheitswesen. 2020;82:288–92. [in German]. 3. Zaletel M, Kralj M, editors. Methodological guidelines and recommendations for efficient and rational governance of patient registries. Ljubljana: National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia,; 2015. 4. Taruscio D, Mollo E, Gainotti S, Posada de la Paz M, Bianchi F, Vittozzi L. The EPIRARE proposal of a set of indicators and common data elements for the European platform for rare disease registration. Archives PublicHealth. 2014;72:35. 5. Stausberg J, Altmann U, Antony G, Drepper J, Sax U, Schütt A. Registers for networked medical research in Germany. Situation and prospects. Appl Clin Inf. 2010;1:408–18.
|
|