1 / 25

Refining the NAPHSIS role in data access

Refining the NAPHSIS role in data access. Bruce Cohen Sukhjeet Ahuja June 7, 2010. Goals. Protect confidentiality of jurisdictional vitals data: Adhering to state regulations Following review procedures Incorporating data release policies while

josephdwilliams
Download Presentation

Refining the NAPHSIS role in data access

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Refining the NAPHSIS role in data access Bruce Cohen Sukhjeet Ahuja June 7, 2010

  2. Goals Protect confidentiality of jurisdictional vitals data: • Adhering to state regulations • Following review procedures • Incorporating data release policies while Promoting use of vitals data for research to the greatest extent possible

  3. Context • Jurisdictions have increased responsibilities regarding data access • Our Federal partners have increasing demands for use of data for research • Strengthening NAPHSIS involvement can help represent state interests while expediting appropriate access and use

  4. Challenges • Jurisdictions have differing policies and procedures • Researchers doing more complex analyses • Federal agencies expanding use of data • Web-based query systems • Multiple projects and ongoing use • Desire to be data providers as well to be data users

  5. Successes • NAPHSIS-NCHS review process • PRAMS • EPHTN • NCI • NDI-CMS

  6. NAPHSIS-NCHS Review Overview Grew out of discussions at last year’s annual meeting to involve states more in the process while maintaining timeliness • NCHS triages data requests to NAPHSIS review committee • NAPHSIS uses online application and an online review form to expedite process

  7. NAPHSIS-NCHS Review Overview • Communicate with applicant to address any issues • Send final approval to NCHS. If disapproved, send applicant a thorough explanation.

  8. NAPHSIS Review Committee • Cathy Molchan Donald (AL) • Glenn Copeland (MI) • Isabelle Horon (MD) • Lou Saadi (KS) • Mark Flotow (IL) • Patricia Potrzebowski (PA) • Stanley Cooper (NE) • Derek Pate (OK) • Bruce Cohen (MA) • Sukhjeet Ahuja, NAPHSIS

  9. Review Criteria 1. Confidentiality and data security:  Researcher needs to agree to neither identify nor try to identify any individual contained in the data; not to publish information that could potentially identify any individual; use data only for approved projects; adhere to NCHS data release standards; securely store data to maintain their confidentiality; and appropriately dispose of data to ensure confidentiality when project is completed. 2. Feasibility:  Data requested can be used to reasonably address the research goals described in the application and are not already publicly-available through NCHS’s Vital Stats Website.  Researcher has demonstrated ability to perform data analysis pursuant to the research goals described in project proposal.

  10. Review Criteria 3. Scientific merit:  Proposed project constitutes legitimate research that may lead to improvement of health.  Legitimate research for the purposes of this section shall mean a systematic statistical study, conforming to or in accordance with generally accepted scientific standards or principles, designed to develop or contribute to scientific knowledge, and that does not identify any person in the study.

  11. Review Outcomes Approved projects: are forwarded to NCHS for their review.  NCHS will obtain signed Data Use Agreements and provide the appropriate data.

  12. Review Outcomes Denied projects: are forwarded to NCHS for their consideration as projects appropriate for analysis through their Research Data Center.  Applicants will also be directed to specific jurisdictions to obtain data directly, if applicable. Applicants will be informed of the specific reason(s) for denial of request.

  13. Review Results • 76 reviews completed since last year (as of 06/03/10) • Median time to get initial feedback to researcher:14 calendar days • Median time for approval:14.5 calendar days • 55 approved, 2 disapproved, 19 currently under review (awaiting reviews and researcher’s response)

  14. Distribution of Research Requests • Academics (Universities and Graduate students) – 33 requests • Non-CDC Federal Agencies (e.g. HHS, NIOSH, NHTSA, NCI, NIH, and EPHTN etc,.) – 17 requests • CDC – 14 requests • Research Entities (Private and Non-governmental Agencies) – 8 requests • Individual Researchers (e.g. Journalists, Foreign Researchers etc,.) – 4 requests

  15. Distribution of Research Requests

  16. Emerging Issues • How can we evaluate research credentials? • Can we approve ongoing research activities rather than individual uses? • Can we permit commercial use? • Can we allow re-release of data? • How do we evaluate data going into web-based query systems? • Are there other files that can be createdeasily by NCHS that might be useful?

  17. NAPHSIS and PRAMS: Issues • Some state vitals registries have not been as involved as they need to in the CDC PRAMS data release process • CDC PRAMS was providing data to researchers that may have been inconsistent with state-specific review and release policies

  18. NAPHSIS and PRAMS: Resolution • Clarification of CDC PRAMS file use • Creation of research file negotiated by states with CDC PRAMS that requires signed data use agreement but no further review • State registries review other research requests • Hopefully, fostered more collaboration between state PRAMS programs and state registries

  19. NAPHSIS and EPHTN: Issues • Uncertainty about how EPHTN was using vital statistics data at national and state levels • Concerns about release of vitals data National Public Portal • Lack of clarity about process for using National Secure Portal • Complex data request to obtain vitals data from NCHS

  20. NAPHSIS and EPHTN: Resolution • NAPHSIS reviewed public portal data release standards • NAPHSIS facilitated the transfer of data from NCHS to EPHTN • Use of national secure portal by individual researchers will require NAPHSIS review

  21. NAPHSIS and NCI: Issues • Re-release of county level data through NCI’s Seer*Stat web based query system may not be consistent with agreed upon suppression standards • Multiple, ongoing uses of data by NCI research group substantially different from explicit, specific data research project request

  22. NAPHSIS and NCI: Resolution • Seer*Stat is changing release criteria to suppress small numbers at the county level • NAPHSIS review team accepted the unique NCI ongoing group data use

  23. NAPHSIS and NDI CMS Request: Issue • CMS wished to not only use approved data, but also to provide the data to external researchers after a formal review process

  24. NAPHSIS and NDI CMS: Resolution • Use of CMS analytic file by external researchers will be reviewed by the NDI advisors which include state representatives

  25. Final thoughts • Both NAPHSIS and NCHS are committed to protecting the confidentiality of the data and promoting research use • State involvement in review of national data requests has strengthened the process while upholding jurisdictional responsibilities • Hopefully, these processes have enhanced understanding among jurisdictions, researchers, and our Federal partners that will led to more collaboration

More Related