Defining Mental Health Conditions Within Primary Care Data: A Validation Study With a Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Approach

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI:10.1111/jep.14256
Juan Carlos Bazo-Alvarez, Christina Avgerinou, Danielle Nimmons, Joseph F. Hayes, David Osborn, Claudia Cooper, Kate Walters, Irene Petersen
{"title":"Defining Mental Health Conditions Within Primary Care Data: A Validation Study With a Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Approach","authors":"Juan Carlos Bazo-Alvarez,&nbsp;Christina Avgerinou,&nbsp;Danielle Nimmons,&nbsp;Joseph F. Hayes,&nbsp;David Osborn,&nbsp;Claudia Cooper,&nbsp;Kate Walters,&nbsp;Irene Petersen","doi":"10.1111/jep.14256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To validate codelists for defining a range of mental health (MH) conditions with primary care data, using a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach and without requiring external data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We validated Read codelists, selecting and classifying them in three steps. The qualitative step included an in-depth revision of the codes by six doctors. Simultaneously, the quantitative step performed on UK primary care data included an exploratory factor analysis to cluster Read codes in MH conditions to obtain an independent classification. The statistical results informed the qualitative conclusions, generating a final selection and classification.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>From a preselected list of 2007 Read codes, a total of 1638 were selected by all doctors. Later, they agreed on classifying these codes into 12 categories of MH disorders. From the same preselected list, a total of 1364 were quantitatively selected. Using data from 497,649 persons who used these Read codes at least once, we performed the exploratory factor analysis, retaining five factors (five categories). Both classifications showed good correspondence, while discrepancies informed decisions on reclassification.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We produced a comprehensive set of medical codes lists for 12 MH conditions validated by a combination of clinical consensus panel and quantitative cluster analysis with cross-validation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To validate codelists for defining a range of mental health (MH) conditions with primary care data, using a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach and without requiring external data.

Methods

We validated Read codelists, selecting and classifying them in three steps. The qualitative step included an in-depth revision of the codes by six doctors. Simultaneously, the quantitative step performed on UK primary care data included an exploratory factor analysis to cluster Read codes in MH conditions to obtain an independent classification. The statistical results informed the qualitative conclusions, generating a final selection and classification.

Results

From a preselected list of 2007 Read codes, a total of 1638 were selected by all doctors. Later, they agreed on classifying these codes into 12 categories of MH disorders. From the same preselected list, a total of 1364 were quantitatively selected. Using data from 497,649 persons who used these Read codes at least once, we performed the exploratory factor analysis, retaining five factors (five categories). Both classifications showed good correspondence, while discrepancies informed decisions on reclassification.

Conclusions

We produced a comprehensive set of medical codes lists for 12 MH conditions validated by a combination of clinical consensus panel and quantitative cluster analysis with cross-validation.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在初级保健数据中定义心理健康状况:一项混合定性和定量方法的验证研究。
目的:在不需要外部数据的情况下,采用混合定性和定量方法,利用初级保健数据验证codelists对一系列精神卫生(MH)状况的定义。方法:对Read编码列表进行验证,分三步进行选择和分类。定性步骤包括六位医生对守则进行深入修订。同时,对英国初级保健数据进行的定量步骤包括探索性因素分析,以聚类MH条件下的Read代码以获得独立分类。统计结果为定性结论提供依据,从而产生最终的选择和分类。结果:从2007年预选的Read代码列表中,所有医生共选择了1638个。后来,他们同意将这些代码分为12类MH障碍。从同一份预选名单中,共定量选出1364份。使用至少一次使用这些Read代码的497,649人的数据,我们进行探索性因素分析,保留五个因素(五个类别)。两种分类显示出良好的对应关系,而差异为重新分类的决定提供了信息。结论:我们通过临床共识小组和交叉验证的定量聚类分析,为12种MH条件制定了一套全面的医疗代码清单。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Digital Health and Fiscal Credibility in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review of Practice-Based Evidence Beyond the p Value Dichotomy: Alternatives for Statistical Inference-A Critical Review. The Current Situation and Conflicts Regarding Family Members' Participation in Postoperative Care for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Qualitative Study. When Pills Get a Pass and Lifestyle Treatments Don't: Misapplication of Phase III Logic to Phase IV Evaluation in Health Care. Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Evidence in Allergen Immunotherapy: A Critical Reflection on Methodological Paradigms, Ethical Implications, and Industry Influence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1