4.5 Review

The Danish health care system and epidemiological research: from health care contacts to database records

期刊

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 563-591

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S179083

关键词

health care sector; political systems; population health; registries; epidemiology

资金

  1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology's Research Foundation
  2. Program for Clinical Research Infrastructure (PROCRIN) by Lundbeckfonden
  3. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  4. Danish Research Council [11-108354, 11-115818]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Denmark has a large network of population-based medical databases, which routinely collect high-quality data as a by-product of health care provision. The Danish medical databases include administrative, health, and clinical quality databases. Understanding the full research potential of these data sources requires insight into the underlying health care system. This review describes key elements of the Danish health care system from planning and delivery to record generation. First, it presents the history of the health care system, its overall organization and financing. Second, it details delivery of primary, hospital, psychiatric, and elderly care. Third, the path from a health care contact to a database record is followed. Finally, an overview of the available data sources is presented. This review discusses the data quality of each type of medical database and describes the relative technical ease and cost-effectiveness of exact individual-level linkage among them. It is shown, from an epidemiological point of view, how Denmark's population represents an open dynamic cohort with complete long-term follow-up, censored only at emigration or death. It is concluded that Denmark's constellation of universal health care, long-standing routine registration of most health and life events, and the possibility of exact individual-level data linkage provides unlimited possibilities for epidemiological research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据