Cargando…

Three controversies in health data science

The routine operation of modern healthcare systems produces a wealth of data in electronic health records, administrative databases, clinical registries, and other clinical systems. It is widely acknowledged that there is great potential for utilising these routine data for health research to derive...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peek, Niels, Rodrigues, Pedro Pereira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30957010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41060-018-0109-y
_version_ 1783402832468115456
author Peek, Niels
Rodrigues, Pedro Pereira
author_facet Peek, Niels
Rodrigues, Pedro Pereira
author_sort Peek, Niels
collection PubMed
description The routine operation of modern healthcare systems produces a wealth of data in electronic health records, administrative databases, clinical registries, and other clinical systems. It is widely acknowledged that there is great potential for utilising these routine data for health research to derive new knowledge about health, disease, and treatments. However, the reuse of routine healthcare data for research is not beyond debate. In this paper, we discuss three issues that have stirred considerable controversy among health data scientists. First, we discuss van der Lei’s 1st Law of Medical Informatics, which states that data shall be used only for the purpose for which they were collected. Then, we discuss to which extent routine data sources and innovations in analytical methods alleviate the need to conduct randomised clinical trials. Finally, we address questions of governance, privacy, and trust when routine health data are made available for research. While we don’t think that there is a definite “right answer” for any of these issues, we argue that data scientists should be aware of the arguments for different viewpoints, respect their validity, and contribute constructively to the debate. The three controversies discussed in this paper relate to core challenges for research with health data and define an essential research agenda for the health data science community.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6413491
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64134912019-04-03 Three controversies in health data science Peek, Niels Rodrigues, Pedro Pereira Int J Data Sci Anal Regular Paper The routine operation of modern healthcare systems produces a wealth of data in electronic health records, administrative databases, clinical registries, and other clinical systems. It is widely acknowledged that there is great potential for utilising these routine data for health research to derive new knowledge about health, disease, and treatments. However, the reuse of routine healthcare data for research is not beyond debate. In this paper, we discuss three issues that have stirred considerable controversy among health data scientists. First, we discuss van der Lei’s 1st Law of Medical Informatics, which states that data shall be used only for the purpose for which they were collected. Then, we discuss to which extent routine data sources and innovations in analytical methods alleviate the need to conduct randomised clinical trials. Finally, we address questions of governance, privacy, and trust when routine health data are made available for research. While we don’t think that there is a definite “right answer” for any of these issues, we argue that data scientists should be aware of the arguments for different viewpoints, respect their validity, and contribute constructively to the debate. The three controversies discussed in this paper relate to core challenges for research with health data and define an essential research agenda for the health data science community. Springer International Publishing 2018-03-07 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6413491/ /pubmed/30957010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41060-018-0109-y Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Regular Paper
Peek, Niels
Rodrigues, Pedro Pereira
Three controversies in health data science
title Three controversies in health data science
title_full Three controversies in health data science
title_fullStr Three controversies in health data science
title_full_unstemmed Three controversies in health data science
title_short Three controversies in health data science
title_sort three controversies in health data science
topic Regular Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30957010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41060-018-0109-y
work_keys_str_mv AT peekniels threecontroversiesinhealthdatascience
AT rodriguespedropereira threecontroversiesinhealthdatascience