Introduction

Demographic shifts towards an older population have given rise to new health care challenges across high-income countries. Despite general improvements in self-perceived health over time, health expectancy metrics have revealed increases in life years with chronic co-morbidity and mild functional impairment[1]. As health profiles of populations change, contemporary health care systems must be re-evaluated to ensure the best provision of care to older persons with more complex needs.

Such is the case for the Netherlands, where an estimated 10% of the population will be 85 years or older by the year 2050[2]. With the aim of developing a more proactive, integrated health care system to accommodate the growing number of older patients, in 2008, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport commissioned the National Care for the Elderly Programme. Under this Programme, a network of local health care providers, consumer advocates and research centres was established with the guiding principles of improving care, quality of life and self-reliance among older persons. To achieve these goals, the Programme promoted research in physical, mental and social health and well-being.

While numerous research projects were to be conducted under this national agenda, the Programme further advocated the development of The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimal DataSet (TOPICS-MDS) which would be integrated into all funded research protocols. This framework would not only have the intrinsic advantage of gathering uniform information on a large sample of older persons and caregivers at minimal cost but also promote data sharing between institutions. The Programme envisioned individual patient data could then be pooled to facilitate meta-analysis as well as serve as a public repository for external users.

Internationally, policymakers, geriatricians and other health professionals have long recognised the utility of incorporating minimal data collection as part of routine management in care facilities[3,4] and hospitals[5] as a well as a mechanism to achieve standardised outcome measurements in research[6,7]. In this context, TOPICS-MDS was developed to serve as a complementary instrument which would not only collect information on older persons but also informal caregivers and health services utilisation. TOPICS-MDS therefore has a broader scope than previous minimal datasets on older persons’ health and contains data relevant for many disciplines, including gerontology, public health and health economics.

Given that TOPICS-MDS was created as a large-scale data sharing initiative[8], the aim of this first paper on the database was two-fold: (1) to describe the development of TOPICS-MDS and feasibility of data collection; and (2) to discuss how frequently met challenges in building a public data repository were overcome.

Materials and Methods

Results

TOPICS-MDS contains essential data to better understand health challenges experienced by older persons and informal caregivers. To highlight the utility of the TOPICS-MDS, descriptive statistics were calculated using preliminary data from 41 research projects. Results are shown for select characteristics only. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.2 (Carey, NC, USA)

Between 2010 and 2013, a total of 41 research projects contributed data to TOPICS-MDS. The majority of studies sampled were from primary care settings and inclusion criteria differed across studies (Table 1). The following analyses are based on the preliminary data for 32,310 older persons and 3,940 informal caregivers.

The majority of older persons in this cohort were women (59.0%). Relative to men, women were modestly older, more likely to be widowed and more likely to reside independently (Table 2). Multi-morbidity was common, with three-quarters of respondents reporting two or more morbidities. The most frequently cited conditions were hearing problems (45.8%), knee and hip joint damage (42.0%) and vision disorders (39.4%).

Based on the EQ-5D+C, the vast majority reported no problems with self care; though, severe problems with anxiety and depression were relatively high among both men and women (Table 3). One-third (32.9%) of respondents reported no functional limitations in ADL or IADL. However, substantial gender disparities were observed, with women less likely to report no functional limitations than men (25.2% versus 47.5% respectively). The prevalence of incontinence products use and requiring assistance with household tasks and walking were notably higher among women (Table 4).

The average age of informal caregivers in this cohort was 63 years (SD 13); more than two-thirds (69.8%) were women. Caregivers were most likely to be a spouse/life partner or a daughter/son (in-law) of the care recipient (42.5% and 40.2% respectively); more than half (52.3%) did not live with their care recipient. Approximately 10% of caregivers reported ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of care-related financial burden and nearly one-third (30.6%) received no social support from family, friends or acquaintances (Table 5).

Discussion

TOPICS-MDS has been successfully incorporated into numerous research projects, thus supporting the feasibility of constructing a large (>30,000 observations), standardised dataset pooled from various study protocols. These initial positive findings are encouraging to future researchers who may wish to administer TOPICS-MDS instrument within their own research protocols to further this initiative. The unique implementation strategy of TOPICS-MDS has several inherent strengths. First, integrating a standardised data collection tool into pre-existing research protocols is a highly efficient and cost-effective method to generate data on a large number of respondents. Moreover, by collecting uniform individual-level data, we counter traditional obstacles that impede meta-analysis, such as select reporting of aggregate data or differences in exposure/outcome operational definitions[25,26]. Lastly, with appropriate statistical considerations, the pooled data from TOPICS-MDS may be able to have broader generalizability than individual research studies[27].

Preliminary analyses of TOPICS-MDS revealed that a considerable proportion of recruited older persons experienced some form of disutility, whether related to morbidity, ADL or quality of life, thus alluding to the underlying extent of frailty. Defined as an increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes following a stressor event[28], frailty can serve as a stronger indicator for geriatric intervention than chronological age[29]. For this reason, identifying frailty on a patient-level can result in more effective case management, and on a population-level, can lead to improved distribution of health services. Although there are several valid methods to measure frailty[28], the calculation of a frailty index based on the accumulation of deficits in health[30] (i.e. symptoms, morbidities and/or functional limitations) can be easily applied in large-scale population studies[31-33]. Thus, given the range of deficits captured within TOPICS-MDS, a frailty index can be derived to provide another important indicator of health in the database.

TOPICS-MDS is not without limitations. Arguably, alternative metrics to those included may have permitted a more detailed investigation of outcomes of interest. However, TOPICS-MDS data collection instrument was designed to achieve a critical balance between content and succinctness. Moreover, although the data collection instrument was comprised of well established health scales, given the different sampling frameworks of individual research projects, further methodological investigations are necessary to assess if reliability, validity and generalizability are upheld in the overall sample population. Specifically, future studies examining cluster effects, heterogeneity and patterns in missingness are warranted to maximise the utility and interpretation of the data.

Still, TOPICS-MDS should not only be seen as an endeavour to create a minimal dataset in older persons’ health and wellbeing but also as a large-scale data sharing initiative, which in itself is an important scientific output. Data sharing has the potential to provoke positive changes in public health strategies, improve project cost-effectiveness and enhance scientific integrity[34]. These advantages have become increasingly recognised throughout scientific communities, consequently prompting 17 major funders of public health research to draft a joint statement supporting public data repositories[34,35]. Nonetheless, while advances have been made in biomedical spheres, data sharing remains largely elusive in public health research[35]. Commonly cited barriers include data protection legislation, potential overlap in analyses and funding limitations[36]. Other underlying issues, such as self-perceived proprietorship over databases and the competitive demand to increase published output, also contribute to a research culture which is not conducive with data sharing[35,36]. Thus, despite the potential for increased citation rates[37] and journal policies advocating open access, the release of data is not always achieved in practice[38,39].

In light of these complications, TOPICS-MDS Project Group and Steering Committee sought to proactively address potential obstacles in order to encourage a culture of data sharing from the initial phases of the project. Firstly, to comply with data protection legislation, external users will only be permitted to access a fully anonymised database. To circumvent issues related to publication rights, a brief moratorium in the release of data is implemented to afford research consortium members the opportunity to publish without conflicting data requests. Following this period, all Project Group members acceded that they would have to submit a data request to perform any additional analyses not initiated during the moratorium. To further protect the interests of external users, TOPICS-MDS Societal Board was established as a safeguard against preferential release of data. Lastly, like many public health research projects, TOPICS-MDS received fixed funding. To promote the continuance of the project, funding calls are being actively sought by the Project Group and it is envisioned that TOPICS-MDS will be incorporated into future studies on older persons’ health. Opportunities to link data with permanently funded institutions are also being explored.

Nonetheless, while these aforementioned measures are fundamental for data sharing, we believe that the strong commitment of all involved stakeholders underlies the success of this public data repository to date. Based on our experience, building TOPICS-MDS without collaborating with the researchers who collected the data would have been ineffective. Rather, we found keeping researchers engaged through regular updates and assistance with the data submission process were instrumental to the sustainability of the data sharing initiative.

TOPICS-MDS will be open for external requests in the last quarter of 2013; full details on how to submit a request will be made available through TOPICS-MDS website at: http://www.topics-mds.eu. Additional background information, the TOPICS-MDS data dictionary and relevant syntaxes can also be accessed on the website. Documents are available in English and Dutch.

In conclusion, TOPICS-MDS represents a strong example of a public data repository with wide reaching potential. Understanding the health challenges experienced by older persons and informal caregivers can help inform the reconfiguration of contemporary care models to achieve a more integrated and proactive heath services system. Although based in the Netherlands, such findings are timely and relevant for many industrialised countries where increasing health-related expenditure has necessitated the evaluation of contemporary health care delivery.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank other TOPICS-MDS Consortium members for their contribution to this research. TOPICS-MDS Consortium: Project Group WPJ den Elzen (Dept. of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands); APD Jansen (Dept. of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine/EMGO + Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands); GIJM Kempen (CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Dept. of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Netherlands), PFM Krabbe (Dept. of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands); RJF Melis (Dept. of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands); EP Moll van Charante (Dept. of General Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands); B Steunenberg (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Netherlands); EW Steyerberg (Dept. of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands); Steering Committee E Buskens (Dept. of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands), J Gussekloo (Dept. of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands); HE van der Horst (Dept. of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, Netherlands); MGM Olde-Rikkert, (Dept. of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands); SEJA de Rooij (Dept. of Internal Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands); JMGA Schols (Dept. of Family Medicine and Dept. of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands); MJ Schuurmans (Dept. of Rehabilitation, Nursing Science & Sports, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands); D Smilde (Dept. of Research Policy, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands); Working group D van den Brink, JE Lutomski, L Qin (Dept. of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands).