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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |