Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023
Feasibility and validity of using healthcare databases to conduct cross-national comparative studies of opioid use, its determinants and consequences.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Teng-Chou, Wettermark Björn, Steinke Douglas, Caughey Gillian E, Tadrous Mina, Wirtz Veronika J, Chen Li-Chia, Global Opioid Utilization Research Collaborative Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: A cross-national comparative (CNC) study about opioid utilization would allow the identification of strategies to improve pain management and mitigate risk. However, little is known about the accessibility and validity of information in healthcare databases internationally. This study aimed to identify the feasibility of using healthcare databases to conduct a CNC study of opioid utilization and its associated consequences.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was launched in March 2018, including experts interested in CNC studies comparing opioid utilization by purposeful sampling. An electronic survey was used to collect database characteristics, medicine information, and linkage information of each aggregate-level dataset (AD) and individual patient-level dataset (IPD).
RESULTS: Overall, participants from 21 geographical regions reported 18 ADs and 19 IPDs. Information on dispensed medications is available from 17 ADs and 17 IPDs. Of the 16 ADs that include primary care settings, only 9 ADs can obtain information from secondary care settings. Fourteen IPDs included patients' characteristics or could be retrieved from linkage databases. Although most ADs are publicly accessible (n = 13), only five IPDs can be accessed without extra cost.
CONCLUSION: Most ADs could be used to report opioid utilization in a primary care setting. IPDs with linkage databases should be applied to identify potential determinants, clinical outcomes, and policy impact. Data access restrictions and governance policies across jurisdictions can be challenging for timely analysis and require further collaboration.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was launched in March 2018, including experts interested in CNC studies comparing opioid utilization by purposeful sampling. An electronic survey was used to collect database characteristics, medicine information, and linkage information of each aggregate-level dataset (AD) and individual patient-level dataset (IPD).
RESULTS: Overall, participants from 21 geographical regions reported 18 ADs and 19 IPDs. Information on dispensed medications is available from 17 ADs and 17 IPDs. Of the 16 ADs that include primary care settings, only 9 ADs can obtain information from secondary care settings. Fourteen IPDs included patients' characteristics or could be retrieved from linkage databases. Although most ADs are publicly accessible (n = 13), only five IPDs can be accessed without extra cost.
CONCLUSION: Most ADs could be used to report opioid utilization in a primary care setting. IPDs with linkage databases should be applied to identify potential determinants, clinical outcomes, and policy impact. Data access restrictions and governance policies across jurisdictions can be challenging for timely analysis and require further collaboration.