Answering questions posed by health system stakeholders using linked administrative health data at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTObjectivesThere is a growing need to broaden access to administrative health data in order to support decision making and planning by health system stakeholders. An initiative funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) portfolio leverages the linked administrative health data holdings and the scientific and clinical expertise at ICES to answer questions generated by stakeholders that will have a direct impact on health care policy, planning or practice.
 ApproachEligible requesters include government ministries, health care providers and planners. Requests detail the purpose of the research question, the related scientific literature, and the planned use and intended impact of the research findings. An internal review team meets monthly to adjudicate; requests demonstrably needing research findings rapidly are adjudicated on an ad hoc basis. Eligible requests are those that aim to inform evidence-based decision making, do not advocate for a particular answer and are feasible in terms of data availability. All projects are reviewed by the internal privacy office to ensure that use of the administrative health data is in accordance with both data sharing agreements and legislation governing use of personal health information. At no cost to the requesting organization, ICES scientists and research staff formulate the analysis plan, conduct the analysis and prepare the research product (data tables, a slide deck and/or a written report); and, may opt to publish noteworthy findings. All research products must be cleared for risk of re-identification prior to being shared externally.
 ResultsRequests have steadily increased from 43 submissions in fiscal year 2012/13, to 59 in 2014/15 and 74 to date in 2015/16. In fiscal year 2014/15, provincial government and government agencies were the most frequent requesters (39%), followed by hospitals and other health care providers (19%), disease advocacy groups (12%) and professional associations (10%). Requests include assessment of health care utilization; health system performance and evaluation; and chronic disease prevalence and treatment. Time to complete reports varies from 5 days to 24 months, depending on project complexity and requirements. Requesters report that AHRQ research findings have influenced decision-making, policy development and health care practice; and have inspired future research.
 ConclusionThis initiative demonstrates the value and feasibility of using the linked administrative health data to answer questions to meet the unique needs of health planners and policymakers, and presents an opportunity for collaboration beyond the academic research community.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».