The Good, the Bad, the Clunky: Improving the Use of Administrative Data for Research

Abstract Introduction Administrative data arising via the operation of public service delivery systems hold great benefits for citizens and society by enabling new research questions to be addressed, providing they can be made available in a safe, socially acceptable way. In recognition of this potential, the UK Administrative Data Research Network was established in 2013 to enable new research for public benefit. However, there are considerable challenges to be overcome for effective data use, and many of these are common to administrative data enterprises in general. Using this network as a practical case study, we set out to explore the issues and propose how to share the ‘good’, suggest solutions to the ‘bad’, and improve the ‘clunky’ issues, to lead to improvements in administrative data use. Methods A qualitative survey representing the data use pathway was carried out across the network, followed by a workshop to discuss the summarised findings and make further suggestions. This led to a set of recommendations to inform the development of an action plan for implementation. Results The survey respondents (N=27) and workshop participants (N=95) comprised multi disciplinary staff from across the network. The responses were summarised by consensus of three researchers and grouped into six areas: A) Data acquisition pathway; B) Approval processes; C) Controls on access & disclosure; D) Data and metadata; E) Researcher support; and F) Data reuse & retention, leading to an embedded set of 18 recommendations. Key developments promoted by this study were the development of themed research partnerships to progress data acquisition, and a policy of data retention and reuse for research. Conclusions The network has broken new ground in using administrative data for research. This study informed the development of an evidence-based action plan to address many challenges in the effective use of administrative data. It represents a practical worked example, and the learning is widely relevant to enterprises working with administrative data across the world.

[1]  Kerina H. Jones,et al.  The SAIL databank: linking multiple health and social care datasets , 2009, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[2]  R. Lyons,et al.  The SAIL Databank: building a national architecture for e-health research and evaluation , 2009, BMC health services research.

[3]  Nayha Sethi,et al.  Delivering proportionate governance in the era of eHealth , 2013, Medical law international.

[4]  Matthew Woollard,et al.  Administrative Data: Problems and Benefits. A perspective from the United Kingdom , 2014 .

[5]  Simon Thompson,et al.  A case study of the Secure Anonymous Information Linkage (SAIL) Gateway: A privacy-protecting remote access system for health-related research and evaluation☆ , 2014, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[6]  Pam Carter,et al.  The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble , 2015, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[7]  K. O’Hara,et al.  The Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework , 2016 .

[8]  Vernon Gayle,et al.  The role of administrative data in the big data revolution in social science research. , 2016, Social science research.

[9]  Kerina H. Jones,et al.  The other side of the coin: harm due to the non-use of health-related data , 2016, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[10]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  Challenges in administrative data linkage for research , 2017, Big Data Soc..

[11]  C. O'Keefe,et al.  A Position Statement on Population Data Science: The Science of Data about People , 2018, International journal of population data science.

[12]  Kerina H. Jones,et al.  The Good, the Bad, the Clunky and . . . the Outcomes , 2018 .