Methods Used in the Development of Common Data Models for Health Data: Scoping Review

被引:4
|
作者
Ahmadi, Najia [1 ]
Zoch, Michele [1 ]
Kelbert, Patricia [2 ]
Noll, Richard [3 ]
Schaaf, Jannik [3 ]
Wolfien, Markus [1 ,4 ]
Sedlmayr, Martin [1 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Dresden, Inst Med Informat & Biometry, Carl Gustav Carus Fac Med, Fetscherstr 74, D-01307 Dresden, Germany
[2] Fraunhofer Inst Expt Software Engn IESE, Kaiserslautern, Germany
[3] Goethe Univ Frankfurt, Univ Hosp, Inst Med Informat, Frankfurt, Germany
[4] Ctr Scalable Data Analyt & Artificial Intelligence, Dresden, Germany
关键词
common data model; common data elements; health data; electronic health record; Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership; stakeholder involvement; Data harmonisation; Interoperability; Standardized Data Repositories; Suggestive Development Process; Healthcare; Medical Informatics; TRAUMATIC BRAIN-INJURY; KEY DATA ELEMENTS; CLINICAL-RESEARCH; NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS; NATIONAL INSTITUTE; DATA STANDARDS; END-POINTS; CARE; IMPLEMENTATION; SURVEILLANCE;
D O I
10.2196/45116
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Common data models (CDMs) are essential tools for data harmonization, which can lead to significant improvements in the health domain. CDMs unite data from disparate sources and ease collaborations across institutions, resulting in the generation of large standardized data repositories across different entities. An overview of existing CDMs and methods used to develop these data sets may assist in the development process of future models for the health domain, such as for decision support systems.Objective: This scoping review investigates methods used in the development of CDMs for health data. We aim to provide a broad overview of approaches and guidelines that are used in the development of CDMs (ie, common data elements or common data sets) for different health domains on an international level.Methods: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. We conducted the literature search in prominent databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus, starting from January 2000 until March 2022. We identified and screened 1309 articles. The included articles were evaluated based on the type of adopted method, which was used in the conception, users' needs collection, implementation, and evaluation phases of CDMs, and whether stakeholders (such as medical experts, patients' representatives, and IT staff) were involved during the process. Moreover, the models were grouped into iterative or linear types based on the imperativeness of the stages during development.Results: We finally identified 59 articles that fit our eligibility criteria. Of these articles, 45 specifically focused on common medical conditions, 10 focused on rare medical conditions, and the remaining 4 focused on both conditions. The development process usually involved stakeholders but in different ways (eg, working group meetings, Delphi approaches, interviews, and questionnaires). Twenty-two models followed an iterative process.Conclusions: The included articles showed the diversity of methods used to develop a CDM in different domains of health. We highlight the need for more specialized CDM development methods in the health domain and propose a suggestive development process that might ease the development of CDMs in the health domain in the future.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A Detailed Review on the Prominent Compression Methods Used for Reducing the Data Volume of Big Data
    Anuradha D.
    Bhuvaneswari S.
    Annals of Data Science, 2016, 3 (01) : 47 - 62
  • [42] Nursing Process Health Care Indicators A Scoping Review of Development Methods
    Xiao, Sarah
    Widger, Kimberley
    Tourangeau, Ann
    Berta, Whitney
    JOURNAL OF NURSING CARE QUALITY, 2017, 32 (01) : 32 - 39
  • [43] Development, Implementation, and Evaluation Methods for Dashboards in Health Care: Scoping Review
    Helminski, Danielle
    Sussman, Jeremy B.
    Pfeiffer, Paul N.
    Kokaly, Alex N.
    Ranusch, Allison
    Renji, Anjana Deep
    Damschroder, Laura J.
    Landis-Lewis, Zach
    Kurlander, Jacob E.
    JMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2024, 12
  • [44] Utility of Treatment Pattern Analysis Using a Common Data Model: A Scoping Review
    Park, Eun-Gee
    Kim, Min Jung
    Kim, Jinseo
    Shin, Kichul
    Ryu, Borim
    HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS RESEARCH, 2025, 31 (01) : 4 - 15
  • [45] A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research
    Nyanchoka, Linda
    Tudur-Smith, Catrin
    Van Nguyen Thu
    Iversen, Valentia
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Porcher, Raphael
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 109 : 99 - 110
  • [46] A scoping review of the epidemiological methods used to investigate the health effects of industrially contaminated sites
    De Sario, Manuela
    Pasetto, Roberto
    Vecchi, Simona
    Zeka, Ariana
    Hoek, Gerard
    Michelozzi, Paola
    Iavarone, Ivano
    Fletcher, Tony
    Bauleo, Lisa
    Ancona, Carla
    EPIDEMIOLOGIA & PREVENZIONE, 2018, 42 (5-6): : 59 - 68
  • [47] Theories of learning and teaching methods used in postgraduate education in the health sciences: a scoping review
    McInerney, Patricia
    Green-Thompson, Lionel Patrick
    JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2020, 18 (01) : 1 - 29
  • [48] The measurement of viscosity of alloys - a review of methods, data and models
    Brooks, RF
    Dinsdale, AT
    Quested, PN
    MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2005, 16 (02) : 354 - 362
  • [49] Comparing In-Person and Remote Qualitative Data Collection Methods for Data Quality and Inclusion: A Scoping Review
    Roberts, Julie
    Onuegbu, Chinwe
    Harris, Bronwyn
    Clark, Corinna
    Griffiths, Frances
    Seers, Kate
    Aktas, Puren
    Staniszewska, Sophie
    Boardman, Felicity
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE METHODS, 2025, 24
  • [50] Conceptualizing fairness in the secondary use of health data for research: A scoping review
    de la Cruz, Patricia Cervera
    Shabani, Mahsa
    ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-ETHICS INTEGRITY AND POLICY, 2025, 32 (03): : 233 - 262