Back

Using fragmented data to characterize community healthcare utilization

McCready, T.; Thorpe, L.; Roy, B.; Renson, A.

2026-07-15 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.07.13.26357976 medRxiv
Show abstract

Community-level estimates of healthcare utilization are essential for identifying inequities, allocating resources, and evaluating place-based interventions. However, in the United States, no single data source adequately captures healthcare utilization within geographically defined populations. Population-based surveys often lack sufficient geographic resolution, insurance claims represent only covered populations, and electronic health records are limited to care delivered within participating health systems. Increasingly, researchers combine these fragmented data sources, yet limited guidance exists for conducting valid population-based descriptive analyses using incomplete and overlapping data. We review the strengths and limitations of major data sources used to characterize community healthcare utilization and propose an approach for conducting population-based descriptive analyses using fragmented data. Rather than focusing on the limitations of individual data sources, our approach begins by explicitly defining the target population and the ideal observational study that would answer the research question. Available data sources are then conceptualized as incomplete or imperfect realizations of that ideal, providing a structured approach to (a) identifying sources of selection bias, missingness, and measurement error, (b) articulating required assumptions, and (c) selecting appropriate analytic strategies. We illustrate our approach using colorectal cancer screening utilization among adults residing in Brooklyn, New York during 2022. By shifting attention from individual data sources to the target community and the assumptions required for valid inference, this approach provides a practical approach for strengthening descriptive analyses of community healthcare utilization and informing place-based public health research, policy, and practice.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
30.5%
2
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.6%
3
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
4
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 3%
5.1%
5
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Biometrics
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.2%
8
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
9
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.2%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
11
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
12
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Journal of General Internal Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
15
Epidemiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
16
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
18
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
20
American Journal of Epidemiology
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.8%
23
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
26
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 79%
0.6%
28
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
29
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%