The Utrecht Health Project: Optimization of routine healthcare data for research
- 246 Downloads
Research on the impact of changes in healthcare policy, developments in community and public health and determinants of health and disease during lifetime may effectively make use of routine healthcare data. These data, however, need to meet minimal criteria for quality and completeness. Research opportunities are further improved when routine data are supplemented with a standardized ‘baseline’ assessment of the full population. This formed the basis for a new study initiated in a newly developed large residential area in Leidsche Rijn, part of the city of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
All new inhabitants are invited by their general practitioner to participate in the Utrecht Health Project (UHP). Informed consent is obtained and an individual health profile (IHP) is made by dedicated research nurses. The IHP is the starting point for the UHP research database as well as for the primary care electronic medical records. Follow-up data are collected through continuous linkage with the computerized medical files recorded by the general practitioners. UHP staff in each practice takes care of quality management of registration as well as data handling.
Currently, over 60 of invited new residents in the area have given informed consent with participation steadily increasing.
The Utrecht Health Project combines key elements of traditional epidemiologic cohort studies with the current power of routine electronic medical record keeping in primary care. The research approach optimizes routine health care data for use in scientific research.
KeywordsContinuous registration Follow-up study Health monitoring Primary care Study population
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Sixma, HJ, Langerak, EH, Schrijvers, AJ, Bent, J 1993Attempting to reduce hospital costs by strengthening primary care institutions. The Dutch Health Care Demonstration Project in the new town of AlmereJAMA26925672572Google Scholar
- 2.Derogatis, LR, Lipman, RS, Covi, L 1973SCL-90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale – Preliminary reportPsychopharmacol Bull91327Google Scholar
- 3.Widenfelt, BM, Goedhart, AW, Treffers, PD, Goodman, R 2003Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry12281289Google Scholar
- 4.Veldhuyzenvan Zanten, SJO, Tytgat, KMAJ, Pollak, PT, Goldie, J, Goodacre, RL, Riddell, RH, Hunt, RH 1993Can severity of symptoms be used as an outcome measure in trials of non-ulcer dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori associated gastritisJ Clin Epidemiol46273279Google Scholar
- 5.Rose, GA, Blackburn, H 1968Cardiovascular survey methodsMonogr Ser World Health Organ561188Google Scholar
- 6.Ormel, J, Koeter, MW, Brink, W, Willige, G 1991Recognition, management, and course of anxiety and depression in general practiceArch Gen Psychiatr48700706Google Scholar
- 8.Lamberts, HWood, M eds. 1987ICPC: International classification of primary careOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
- 9.Katier, N, Uiterwaal, CS, Jong, BM, Kimpen, JL, Verheij, TJ, Grobbe, DE, Brunekreef, B, Numans, ME, Ent, CK 2004The wheezing illnesses study Leidsche Rijn (WHISTLER): Rationale and designEur J Epidemiol19895903Google Scholar