Developing a Training Program for Healthcare Data Professionals in South Korea: A Needs Analysis

Article information

Healthc Inform Res. 2026;32(1):92-100

Publication date (electronic) : 2026 January 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2026.32.1.92

Yeonju Kim¹, Yonghwan Moon¹, Jipmin Jung², Seungwon Jeung², Young-A Ji³, Gwihyun Kim⁴, Youngho Lee⁵, Hyekyung Woo^1,6

¹Department of Health Administration, College of Nursing & Health, Kongju National University, Gongju, Korea

²Korea Health Information Service, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Medical Education, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Health Management, Kyung-in Women’s University, Incheon, Korea

⁵Department of IT Computer Engineering, Gachon University, Seongnam, Korea

⁶Institute of Health and Environment, Kongju National University, Gongju, Korea

Corresponding Author: Hyekyung Woo, Department of Health Administration, College of Nursing & Health, Kongju National University, 56, Gongjudaehak-ro, Gongju 32588, Korea. Tel: +82-41-850-0328, E-mail: hkwoo@kongju.ac.kr (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5489-3404)

Received 2025 March 8; Revised 2025 October 20; Accepted 2025 October 27.

Abstract

I. Introduction

With the rapid advancement of data collection and utilization technologies, including medical devices, artificial intelligence (AI), and big data, healthcare data have emerged as a critical resource in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In particular, revisions to the so-called “three data laws” have established a legal foundation permitting the use of pseudonymized personal data for specified purposes without obtaining consent from data subjects, thereby further emphasizing the technological and societal value of healthcare data utilization [1,2].

Amid these developments, the government has actively promoted policies to support innovative growth through the utilization of healthcare data, with one of the most prominent initiatives being the “opening of public data.” Recently, efforts to expand access to public healthcare data have intensified, as exemplified by the National Health Insurance Service and the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, both of which provide nationwide patient treatment data to the public [3]. These policy initiatives have substantially improved the environment for healthcare data use, resulting in a marked increase in demand for such data [1].

However, healthcare data exist in a wide range of formats, including electronic health records, and continue to face persistent challenges related to standardization, data quality, and interoperability. As the number of data sources and data types continues to expand, system fragmentation has intensified, underscoring the growing need for international collaboration [4,5]. Although institutional frameworks such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and California’s Consumer Privacy Act have been established, cross-national differences in regulatory systems and technical capacity hinder effective implementation. Consequently, cultivating a professional workforce equipped with competencies in data security, ethics, and legal compliance has become essential for the safe and effective utilization of healthcare data [6,7].

A recent survey of the digital healthcare industry indicated that many companies experience difficulty in recruiting professionals with the required competencies, and a substantial proportion of firms reported operational challenges attributable to workforce shortages [8]. These findings suggest a mismatch between the rapidly evolving legal and regulatory environments surrounding healthcare data and the availability of professionals possessing adequate technical and governance-related expertise. As a result, there is a pressing need for a systematic educational program aimed at cultivating specialized professionals capable of sustainably managing and utilizing healthcare data [9].

To develop an effective educational program, it is necessary to analyze gaps between required competencies and existing skill levels, thereby identifying training priorities and potential strategies for improvement [10]. In this context, understanding the current level of expertise among healthcare data professionals is particularly important. Their perspectives regarding educational needs and areas requiring enhancement provide essential foundational evidence for refining curricula and determining the future direction of training programs [9].

Accordingly, this study aimed to generate empirical evidence to support the development of an educational program aligned with the practical demands of the healthcare field. By conducting a needs assessment among professionals engaged in healthcare data utilization, this study seeks to propose strategic directions for fostering specialized professionals in this domain.

II. Methods

III. Results

1. Default Demographic Information of Participants

A total of 68 individuals were invited to participate in the survey, of whom 67 (98.5%) consented to participate. Final responses were therefore collected from 67 participants. Among the respondents, 24 were male (35.8%) and 43 were female (64.2%). The most common age group was 30–39 years (24 participants, 35.8%), followed by the 40–49, 50–59, and 20–29 year age groups. In terms of educational background, the largest proportion of respondents held bachelor’s degrees (30 participants, 44.8%). Regarding organizational affiliation, 45 respondents (67.2%) reported being associated with healthcare institutions. Among the respondents, 39 (58.2%) held managerial positions, whereas 28 (41.8%) held non-managerial roles.

The primary duty reported by the survey respondents was data deliberation, with 19 participants (28.4%) engaged in this role. Other reported duties included pseudonymization research and evaluation, data analysis, policy planning and review, medical information management, information and personal data protection, management of informatization projects, pseudonymization appropriateness reviews, legal reviews, research management, personal data access management, and medical fee assessments. The average total work experience of respondents in their respective fields was 12 years and 9 months. With respect to healthcare data utilization experience, 18 participants (26.9%) reported having more than 10 years of experience (Table 1).

Table 1

Characteristics of responses (n = 67)

2. Job-Related Questions

The most common data-related issues faced by practitioners were security and privacy protection concerns, reported by 33 participants (49.3%), followed by difficulties in data integration (15 participants, 22.4%), reliability issues related to analysis results (11 participants, 16.4%), difficulties in handling large datasets (5 participants, 7.5%), and other issues (3 participants, 4.5%). The change expected to have the greatest future impact on the healthcare data field was increased utilization of big data–based healthcare data analytics, which was selected by 22 participants (32.8%). This was followed by strengthening ethical standards for medical data provision and use (13 participants, 19.4%), standardization and interoperability of healthcare data, and increased demand for healthcare data utilization research (12 participants, 17.9%). Advancements in personal data protection technologies were selected by five participants (7.5%), while expansion of distributed processing systems for healthcare data management was selected by three participants (4.5%).

Regarding areas requiring improvement in job roles, 23 participants (34.3%) identified healthcare data analysis and utilization as the most critical area, followed by compliance with personal data protection laws and related regulations and utilization of artificial intelligence (14 participants, 20.9%), advanced learning in pseudonymized data processing (12 participants, 17.9%), and advanced learning in research design and methodology (four participants, 6.0%).

The educational format preferred to support practitioners in their job roles was short-term programs (1–2 months) that combined theory and practice, which were selected by 28 participants (41.8%). This preference was followed by elective courses within existing educational programs (17 participants, 25.4%), practice-focused short-term programs (1–2 months) (10 participants, 14.9%), long-term programs exceeding three months that included both theory and practice (7 participants, 10.4%), and completion of a separate degree program (5 participants, 7.5%) (Table 2).

Table 2

Job-related questions (n = 67)

3. Fundamentals Required for Specialized Professionals

Among the respondents, 53 participants (79.1%) indicated that holding a degree was necessary, whereas 14 participants (20.9%) reported that it was not. Regarding the specific level of degree required, the largest proportion indicated a bachelor’s degree (38 participants, 56.7%), followed by master’s and associate degrees. Doctoral degrees and other degree types were reported at the same proportion.

With respect to the necessity of having a relevant major, 54 participants (80.6%) considered it necessary, while 13 participants (19.4%) disagreed. The most frequently required major was healthcare informatics (30 participants, 44.8%), followed by other majors, including interdisciplinary studies, public health, nursing, computer engineering, and medicine.

Regarding certifications and licenses, 43 participants (64.2%) considered them necessary, whereas 24 participants (35.8%) did not. The most frequently required certification was that of a healthcare data utilization professional (28 participants, 41.8%), followed by certifications in healthcare information management, other qualifications, data analysis expertise, SQL specialization, big data analysis engineering, and data architecture professionalism.

With respect to internship and project experience, 45 participants (67.2%) reported that such experience was necessary, while 22 participants (32.8%) did not. Among the types of experience, research experience was most frequently selected (31 participants, 46.3%), followed by short-term internships and other types of experience. Long-term internships exceeding one year and industry–university projects were reported at the same rate, followed by participation in contests or exhibitions (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Fundamentals required for specialized professionals (n = 67).

4. Required Competencies and Educational Program Topics and Content

To identify educational content with high practitioner demand for program development, topics scoring 3.8 or higher out of 5 for both perceived need and importance were extracted (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Required abilities. IRB, institutional review board, DRB: data review board. *: significant differences in demands between data users, data providers and data support participants.

Practitioners demonstrated the highest demand for training in governance competencies, followed by personal competencies and healthcare knowledge competencies, whereas no significant demand was identified for technical competencies.

With respect to personal competencies, significant differences in demand were observed among data users, data providers, and data utilization supporters. In particular, the data utilization supporter group demonstrated a higher demand for training in collaboration and vocational ethics. Training related to Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Data Review Boards (DRBs) was identified as the most strongly demanded. For training programs rated highly in both need and importance, practitioners expressed a preference for advanced training in subjects related to data practice, whereas subjects related to personal cognition and ethics were more frequently identified as requiring basic-level training.

IV. Discussion

This study aimed to provide a foundational direction for the development of educational programs to train professionals in healthcare data utilization by examining respondents’ basic characteristics and job-related requirements and by deriving specific training content. Through this process, demands among data utilization researchers, data providers, and data utilization supporters were identified, and the findings emphasize the necessity of education related to IRBs and DRBs. In addition, the results highlight the need to propose clear guidelines and technical solutions for data protection and data integration. Finally, given the increasing importance of big data analysis and AI utilization, this study concludes that corresponding educational programs are required.

Practitioners in the field of healthcare data utilization recognized governance competencies as important elements in the development of educational programs. Differences in demand were observed across data users, data providers, and data utilization supporters, particularly with respect to collaboration and vocational ethics, for which the supporter group expressed a relatively higher demand. These findings may reflect differences in professional responsibilities and organizational roles among the groups. In particular, the higher demand for education related to collaboration and professional ethics among data utilization supporters may be attributed to their coordinating role in facilitating inter-institutional cooperation and multidisciplinary teamwork. This interpretation is consistent with international healthcare workforce competency models, which emphasize effective collaboration and ethical judgment as core competencies for data sharing and team-based research [11]. Collaboration competencies are essential skills that facilitate cooperative learning and are educationally important because they promote interaction among learners and foster the development of cognitive processes [12]. Vocational ethics are regarded as critical competencies for maintaining professional expertise and job sustainability, particularly in contemporary contexts in which professional roles are increasingly diversified. In advanced countries, such as the United States, the importance of vocational ethics has long been recognized, and many states have conducted research on this topic and incorporated it into educational curricula [13].

Among governance competencies, the demand for training in research ethics related to IRB procedures and data review processes associated with DRBs was particularly high. Healthcare big data researchers are required to obtain approval from an IRB before conducting research in accordance with the Bioethics and Safety Act, Article 15, Section 1 [ 14]. DRBs are established under healthcare data utilization guidelines to review and determine the use of pseudonymized data for purposes such as research, statistical analysis, and public record retention [15]. At present, there is a growing need for structured data review systems that define technical methods for pseudonymization and assess the scope and appropriateness of pseudonymization to ensure the safe utilization of healthcare data [16]. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Health Data Governance Framework emphasizes the importance of establishing clear rules and structured educational systems across all processes of data access, linkage, and protection, and identifies legal and ethical data governance competencies as essential skills for healthcare data professionals from this perspective [17,18]. Taken together, these findings suggest that strengthening IRB and DRB training is critical for enabling researchers to effectively utilize healthcare big data while providing clear guidance on pseudonymization techniques and data security measures. Such efforts are expected to support compliance with legal requirements and promote the safe handling of healthcare data.

When examining demand for advanced training, the data utilization research group expressed a high demand for education related to healthcare data statistics generation and utilization, whereas the data provider group demonstrated greater demand for training in logical thinking and IRB-related education. Data utilization supporters showed a particularly high demand for advanced DRB training. These findings indicate the need for tailored, competency-based training programs that account for role-specific responsibilities and support the development of educational content aligned with the future needs of professionals in the healthcare data field [19].

Practical challenges faced by healthcare data professionals, including security, privacy protection, and data integration, were identified as major concerns. Healthcare data represent a domain in which issues of personal data protection and data utilization frequently conflict. Because healthcare data are classified as sensitive information under privacy laws, unauthorized exposure may result in privacy violations and other forms of harm [20]. In addition, although secondary data sources are produced by various institutions, integration of data across different sources remains limited in practice [ 21]. This limitation arises in part because data linkage and merging processes, which may increase risks related to personal data exposure, are subject to regulatory restrictions [ 22]. Therefore, the establishment of clear guidelines, along with appropriate technical and legal measures, is essential to ensure the safe integration and utilization of healthcare data.

Practitioners anticipated that big data-based healthcare data analysis would represent the most influential future change in the field. As the healthcare system transitions from a treatment-centered model to one emphasizing prevention and health management, the application of big data to disease prediction, health screening, and genomic analysis is expanding [23]. As the value of big data continues to increase alongside the acceleration of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, securing professionals capable of extracting meaningful value from data and developing effective big data policies has become increasingly important [19]. Accordingly, future educational programs should incorporate training in big data analysis methods, AI and machine learning applications, data preprocessing techniques, ethics education, and systems for integrating diverse forms of healthcare data.

This study has limitations, including restricted generalizability due to the relatively small number of respondents. In addition, although four core competency domains—health and medical knowledge, data analysis, technical competency, and personal competency—were identified, discussion of each domain was necessarily concise in accordance with the scope and focus of the study. These limitations should be addressed in future research through the application of more advanced statistical methods, including inferential analyses, and through detailed competency mapping to further examine the observed trends and competency requirements. Nevertheless, this study is meaningful in that it represents an initial effort to identify educational program demands for cultivating professionals capable of utilizing healthcare data and provides foundational evidence to support future program development.

In conclusion, this study investigated the demand for educational programs aimed at training professionals in healthcare data utilization and identified the specific needs of field practitioners engaged in healthcare data-related work. The findings confirmed that required levels of core competencies vary according to stakeholder roles, including data utilization researchers, data providers, and data utilization supporters. These results are expected to serve as foundational evidence for the development of educational programs that more accurately reflect the diverse demands of practitioners. Furthermore, there is a need to design a comprehensive and detailed interdisciplinary educational program based on the five core competencies: healthcare knowledge, data analysis, technical skills, governance, and personal skills. In particular, education related to IRBs and DRBs within the governance competency was identified as a critical component for ensuring the ethical and secure use of healthcare data and should therefore be prioritized in future curriculum development.

Article information Continued