J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015 Jul 20;3. doi: 10.3402/jmahp.v3.28076. eCollection 2015.

A review of accessibility of administrative healthcare databases in the Asia-Pacific region.

Journal of market access & health policy

Dominique Milea, Soraya Azmi, Praveen Reginald, Patrice Verpillat, Clement Francois

PMID: 27123180 PMCID: PMC4802693 DOI: 10.3402/jmahp.v3.28076

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We describe and compare the availability and accessibility of administrative healthcare databases (AHDB) in several Asia-Pacific countries: Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Thailand, and Malaysia.

METHODS: The study included hospital records, reimbursement databases, prescription databases, and data linkages. Databases were first identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, and the ISPOR database register. Database custodians were contacted. Six criteria were used to assess the databases and provided the basis for a tool to categorise databases into seven levels ranging from least accessible (Level 1) to most accessible (Level 7). We also categorised overall data accessibility for each country as high, medium, or low based on accessibility of databases as well as the number of academic articles published using the databases.

RESULTS: Fifty-four administrative databases were identified. Only a limited number of databases allowed access to raw data and were at Level 7 [Medical Data Vision EBM Provider, Japan Medical Data Centre (JMDC) Claims database and Nihon-Chouzai Pharmacy Claims database in Japan, and Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), Centre for Health Record Linkage (CHeReL), HealthLinQ, Victorian Data Linkages (VDL), SA-NT DataLink in Australia]. At Levels 3-6 were several databases from Japan [Hamamatsu Medical University Database, Medi-Trend, Nihon University School of Medicine Clinical Data Warehouse (NUSM)], Australia [Western Australia Data Linkage (WADL)], Taiwan [National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD)], South Korea [Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA)], and Malaysia [United Nations University (UNU)-Casemix]. Countries were categorised as having a high level of data accessibility (Australia, Taiwan, and Japan), medium level of accessibility (South Korea), or a low level of accessibility (Thailand, China, Malaysia, and Singapore). In some countries, data may be available but accessibility was restricted based on requirements by data custodians.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previous research, this study describes the landscape of databases in the selected countries with more granularity using an assessment tool developed for this purpose. A high number of databases were identified but most had restricted access, preventing their potential use to support research. We hope that this study helps to improve the understanding of the AHDB landscape, increase data sharing and database research in Asia-Pacific countries.

Keywords: Asia-Pacific; administrative; data; database; epidemiology; research

References

1. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Jul-Aug;21(4):612-4 - PubMed
2. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998 May;45(5):419-25 - PubMed
3. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010 Feb;106(2):86-94 - PubMed
4. Diabetes Care. 2004 May;27 Suppl 2:B22-6 - PubMed
5. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(5):129 - PubMed
6. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):377-9 - PubMed
7. Popul Health Manag. 2010 Jun;13(3):139-50 - PubMed
8. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012 Jul;95 Suppl 7:S217-23 - PubMed
9. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012 Jul;95 Suppl 7:S190-5 - PubMed
10. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Apr;26 Suppl 1:108-15 - PubMed
11. Ann Pharmacother. 1998 Nov;32(11):1152-7 - PubMed
12. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012 Jul;95 Suppl 7:S240-53 - PubMed
13. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Mar;68(3):283-7 - PubMed
14. Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Apr;129(4):837-49 - PubMed
15. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 May;119(5):727-32 - PubMed
16. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012 Jul;95 Suppl 7:S211-6 - PubMed
17. Int J Neurosci. 2014 Jun;124(6):416-20 - PubMed
18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jan;58(1):98-102 - PubMed
19. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012 Jul;95 Suppl 7:S201-5 - PubMed
20. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006 Mar;98(3):311-3 - PubMed
21. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012 May;47(5):683-9 - PubMed
22. J Korean Med Sci. 2012 Oct;27(10):1233-40 - PubMed
23. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010 Sep-Oct;24(5):e110-3 - PubMed
24. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014 Mar;97(3):283-92 - PubMed
25. J Korean Med Sci. 2011 Dec;26(12):1533-40 - PubMed
26. J Korean Med Sci. 2012 Jun;27(6):681-5 - PubMed
27. J Community Health Nurs. 2011 Oct;28(4):190-203 - PubMed
28. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Jul;66(7):743-8 - PubMed
29. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999 Sep;128(3):345-51 - PubMed
30. Eur J Cancer. 2010 Jan;46(2):395-404 - PubMed
31. Epilepsia. 2014 May;55(5):666-73 - PubMed
32. Endocr Pract. 2015 Jan;21(1):77-86 - PubMed
33. J Affect Disord. 2011 Jul;132(1-2):121-9 - PubMed
34. Atherosclerosis. 2008 Mar;197(1):318-25 - PubMed
35. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013 Jul;22(7):700-4 - PubMed
36. Value Health. 2012 Jan-Feb;15(1 Suppl):S132-8 - PubMed
37. Epidemiol Health. 2014 Jul 30;36:e2014008 - PubMed
38. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):323-37 - PubMed
39. PLoS One. 2014 May 09;9(5):e95419 - PubMed
40. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Sep;84(9):990-2 - PubMed
41. J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):174-8 - PubMed
42. Eur Heart J. 1999 Dec;20(23):1689-91 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article