You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Evidence based practice
Research
The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review
  1. Alexander J Fowler1,
  2. Riaz A Agha2,
  3. Christian F Camm3,
  4. Peter Littlejohns4
  1. 1Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, QMUL, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Plastic Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK
  3. 3New College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  4. 4Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Kings College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Alexander J Fower; ha09410{at}qmul.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To assess the use and utility of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research since 2005 and to determine if any particular feature of studies found led to greater data acquisition.

Design PRISMA compliant systematic review.

Participants An extensive literature search was performed of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, psychINFO, BNI, AMED, HMIC and Health business elite databases from January 2005 to January 2013 using terms ‘Freedom of information’, ‘Freedom of information act’ and ‘Freedom of information act 2000’. Papers were considered for publication if they described utilising the UK Freedom of information act to gather data for healthcare research. 16 articles met these criteria.

Primary and Secondary outcome measures Primary outcome was the number and characteristics of studies utilising the Freedom of Information Act to collect the data for healthcare research. Secondary outcome measures were any features that improved data acquisition rates (including to whom the request was made, the number of questions asked per request, etc.)

Results 16 articles described utilising the Freedom of Information Act for healthcare research, and these investigated a broad range of topics. The median number of requests made was 86 (range 1–172), the total number of requests was 1732. A total of 15 817 pieces of data were retrieved by all studies. The amount of data collected was defined as the number of questions asked multiplied by the number of full responses. A median of five questions were asked per study (range 5–6.5) and the overall response rate was 86%. The National Health Service litigation authority responded to 100% of requests, while Primary Care Trusts had the lowest response rate of 81% for healthcare bodies. A positive correlation between number of requests made and data obtained (0.508, p<0.05) and number of requests made and increased response rate (0.737, p<0.01), both reached the statistical significance.

Conclusions Researchers should make greater use of the Act to access the information they need that is not otherwise disclosed. We discuss the issues with the research utilising the Act and how future research of this type could be optimised.

  • HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
  • STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002967

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text