Neurotrauma Reports (Apr 2024)

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Statement of Working Principles and Rapid Review of Methods to Define Data Dictionaries for Neurological Conditions

  • Matthew K. Bagg,
  • Amelia J. Hicks,
  • Sarah C. Hellewell,
  • Jennie L. Ponsford,
  • Natasha A. Lannin,
  • Terence J. O'Brien,
  • Peter A. Cameron,
  • D. Jamie Cooper,
  • Nick Rushworth,
  • Belinda J. Gabbe,
  • Melinda Fitzgerald,
  • Collaboration group,
  • Collaboration group

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/NEUR.2023.0116
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 1
pp. 424 – 447

Abstract

Read online

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to develop a health informatics approach to collect data predictive of outcomes for persons with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. Central to this approach is a data dictionary; however, no systematic reviews of methods to define and develop data dictionaries exist to-date. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify and characterize methods for designing data dictionaries to collect outcomes or variables in persons with neurological conditions. Database searches were conducted from inception through October 2021. Records were screened in two stages against set criteria to identify methods to define data dictionaries for neurological conditions (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: 08, 22, and 23). Standardized data were extracted. Processes were checked at each stage by independent review of a random 25% of records. Consensus was reached through discussion where necessary. Thirty-nine initiatives were identified across 29 neurological conditions. No single established or recommended method for defining a data dictionary was identified. Nine initiatives conducted systematic reviews to collate information before implementing a consensus process. Thirty-seven initiatives consulted with end-users. Methods of consultation were ?roundtable? discussion (n?=?30); with facilitation (n?=?16); that was iterative (n?=?27); and frequently conducted in-person (n?=?27). Researcher stakeholders were involved in all initiatives and clinicians in 25. Importantly, only six initiatives involved persons with lived experience of TBI and four involved carers. Methods for defining data dictionaries were variable and reporting is sparse. Our findings are instructive for AUS-TBI and can be used to further development of methods for defining data dictionaries.

Keywords