Cargando…

The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research

OBJECTIVE: A wealth of data is generated through Australia’s universal health care arrangements. However, use of these data has been hampered by different federal and state legislation, privacy concerns and challenges in linking data across jurisdictions. A series of data reforms have been touted to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Oliveira Costa, Juliana, Bruno, Claudia, Schaffer, Andrea L, Raichand, Smriti, Karanges, Emily A, Pearson, Sallie-Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Swansea University 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8107783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34007904
http://dx.doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v6i1.1418
_version_ 1783690013792272384
author de Oliveira Costa, Juliana
Bruno, Claudia
Schaffer, Andrea L
Raichand, Smriti
Karanges, Emily A
Pearson, Sallie-Anne
author_facet de Oliveira Costa, Juliana
Bruno, Claudia
Schaffer, Andrea L
Raichand, Smriti
Karanges, Emily A
Pearson, Sallie-Anne
author_sort de Oliveira Costa, Juliana
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: A wealth of data is generated through Australia’s universal health care arrangements. However, use of these data has been hampered by different federal and state legislation, privacy concerns and challenges in linking data across jurisdictions. A series of data reforms have been touted to increase population health research capacity in Australia, including pharmacoepidemiology research. Here we catalogued research leveraging Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data (2014–2018) and discussed these outputs in the context of previously implemented and new data reforms. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of population-based studies using PBS dispensing claims. Independent reviewers screened abstracts of 4,996 articles and 310 full-text manuscripts. We characterised publications according to study population, analytical approach, data sources used, aims and medicines focus. RESULTS: We identified 180 studies; 133 used individual-level data, 70 linked PBS dispensing claims with other health data (66 across jurisdictions). Studies using individual-level data focussed on Australians receiving government benefits (87 studies) rather than all PBS-eligible persons. 63 studies examined clinician or patient practices and 33 examined exposure-outcome relationships (27 evaluated medicines safety, 6 evaluated effectiveness). Medicines acting on the nervous and cardiovascular system account for the greatest volume of PBS medicines dispensed and were the most commonly studied (67 and 40 studies, respectively). Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents account for approximately one third of PBS expenditure but represented only 10% of studies in this review. CONCLUSIONS: The studies in this review represent more than a third of all population-based pharmacoepidemiology research published in the last three decades in Australia. Recent data reforms have contributed to this escalating output. However, studies are concentrated among specific subpopulations and medicines classes, and there remains a limited understanding of population benefits and harms derived from medicines use. The current draft Data Availability and Transparency legislation should further bolster efforts in population health research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8107783
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Swansea University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81077832021-05-17 The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research de Oliveira Costa, Juliana Bruno, Claudia Schaffer, Andrea L Raichand, Smriti Karanges, Emily A Pearson, Sallie-Anne Int J Popul Data Sci Population Data Science OBJECTIVE: A wealth of data is generated through Australia’s universal health care arrangements. However, use of these data has been hampered by different federal and state legislation, privacy concerns and challenges in linking data across jurisdictions. A series of data reforms have been touted to increase population health research capacity in Australia, including pharmacoepidemiology research. Here we catalogued research leveraging Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data (2014–2018) and discussed these outputs in the context of previously implemented and new data reforms. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of population-based studies using PBS dispensing claims. Independent reviewers screened abstracts of 4,996 articles and 310 full-text manuscripts. We characterised publications according to study population, analytical approach, data sources used, aims and medicines focus. RESULTS: We identified 180 studies; 133 used individual-level data, 70 linked PBS dispensing claims with other health data (66 across jurisdictions). Studies using individual-level data focussed on Australians receiving government benefits (87 studies) rather than all PBS-eligible persons. 63 studies examined clinician or patient practices and 33 examined exposure-outcome relationships (27 evaluated medicines safety, 6 evaluated effectiveness). Medicines acting on the nervous and cardiovascular system account for the greatest volume of PBS medicines dispensed and were the most commonly studied (67 and 40 studies, respectively). Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents account for approximately one third of PBS expenditure but represented only 10% of studies in this review. CONCLUSIONS: The studies in this review represent more than a third of all population-based pharmacoepidemiology research published in the last three decades in Australia. Recent data reforms have contributed to this escalating output. However, studies are concentrated among specific subpopulations and medicines classes, and there remains a limited understanding of population benefits and harms derived from medicines use. The current draft Data Availability and Transparency legislation should further bolster efforts in population health research. Swansea University 2021-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8107783/ /pubmed/34007904 http://dx.doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v6i1.1418 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Population Data Science
de Oliveira Costa, Juliana
Bruno, Claudia
Schaffer, Andrea L
Raichand, Smriti
Karanges, Emily A
Pearson, Sallie-Anne
The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research
title The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research
title_full The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research
title_fullStr The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research
title_full_unstemmed The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research
title_short The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research
title_sort changing face of australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research
topic Population Data Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8107783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34007904
http://dx.doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v6i1.1418
work_keys_str_mv AT deoliveiracostajuliana thechangingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT brunoclaudia thechangingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT schafferandreal thechangingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT raichandsmriti thechangingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT karangesemilya thechangingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT pearsonsallieanne thechangingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT deoliveiracostajuliana changingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT brunoclaudia changingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT schafferandreal changingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT raichandsmriti changingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT karangesemilya changingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch
AT pearsonsallieanne changingfaceofaustraliandatareformsimpactonpharmacoepidemiologyresearch