Back

Development and formative application of the Health Data Readiness Level framework for federated health-data services.

Seymour, D.; Halliday, R.; Smart, J.; Burns, F.

2026-07-27 health informatics
10.64898/2026.07.23.26358713 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: To develop a multidimensional framework for assessing organisational and system readiness for federated health-data services, and to report its formative application across three heterogeneous UK ecosystems. Methods: The Health Data Readiness Level (HDRL) framework was developed from a structured landscape review of 56 maturity and readiness frameworks, first-principles requirements analysis, artificial-intelligence-assisted synthesis with human source verification, and stakeholder refinement. It comprises 64 indicators in eight domains and five ordered levels. Formative application examined three heterogeneous UK health-data research ecosystems using documentary evidence, professional stakeholder input, workshops, a structured right-of-reply process, cross-case calibration, and two illustrative research use cases. Analysis was descriptive; the application was not designed as psychometric validation or a league table. Results: All 64 indicators were scoreable in each case. Publicly reported profiles ranged from Developing (Level 2 -3) to Managed (Level 3 -4); all three cases met the proposed minimum for five foundational indicators. Recurring constraints concerned evidence of measured service performance, national-scale primary-care data access, cross-jurisdiction governance reciprocity, workforce capacity, and sustainable funding. Pandemic-era four-nation research was delivered through coordinated local analyses and meta-analysis, rather than routine automated federation. Discussion: HDRL operationalises a broad service- and system-readiness view that complements technical and governance specifications. Content validity, inter-rater reliability, aggregation choices, responsiveness and predictive validity remain to be established. Conclusion: HDRL is an evidence-informed candidate improvement and planning instrument for federated health-data services. It should not yet be used as an accreditation standard or as an official participation threshold for the UK's Health Data Research Service.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.