Comparison of dementia recorded in routinely collected hospital admission data in England with dementia recorded in primary care.

IF 3.6 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Pub Date : 2016-10-28 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s12982-016-0053-z
Anna Brown, Oksana Kirichek, Angela Balkwill, Gillian Reeves, Valerie Beral, Cathie Sudlow, John Gallacher, Jane Green
{"title":"Comparison of dementia recorded in routinely collected hospital admission data in England with dementia recorded in primary care.","authors":"Anna Brown, Oksana Kirichek, Angela Balkwill, Gillian Reeves, Valerie Beral, Cathie Sudlow, John Gallacher, Jane Green","doi":"10.1186/s12982-016-0053-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic linkage of UK cohorts to routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) records provides virtually complete follow-up for cause-specific hospital admissions and deaths. The reliability of dementia diagnoses recorded in NHS hospital data is not well documented.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For a sample of Million Women Study participants in England we compared dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital data (Hospital Episode Statistics: HES) with dementia recorded in two separate sources of primary care information: a primary care database [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), n = 340] and a survey of study participants' General Practitioners (GPs, n = 244).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dementia recorded in HES fully agreed both with CPRD and with GP survey data for 85% of women; it did not agree for 1 and 4%, respectively. Agreement was uncertain for the remaining 14 and 11%, respectively; and among those classified as having uncertain agreement in CPRD, non-specific terms compatible with dementia, such as 'memory loss', were recorded in the CPRD database for 79% of the women. Agreement was significantly better (p < 0.05 for all comparisons) for women with HES diagnoses for Alzheimer's disease (95 and 94% agreement with any dementia for CPRD and GP survey, respectively) and for vascular dementia (88 and 88%, respectively) than for women with a record only of dementia not otherwise specified (70 and 72%, respectively). Dementia in the same woman was first mentioned an average 1.6 (SD 2.6) years earlier in primary care (CPRD) than in hospital (HES) data. Age-specific rates for dementia based on the hospital admission data were lower than the rates based on the primary care data, but were similar if the delay in recording in HES was taken into account.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital admission data for women in England agrees well with primary care records of dementia assessed separately from two different sources, and is sufficiently reliable for epidemiological research.</p>","PeriodicalId":39896,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5084368/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-016-0053-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Electronic linkage of UK cohorts to routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) records provides virtually complete follow-up for cause-specific hospital admissions and deaths. The reliability of dementia diagnoses recorded in NHS hospital data is not well documented.

Methods: For a sample of Million Women Study participants in England we compared dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital data (Hospital Episode Statistics: HES) with dementia recorded in two separate sources of primary care information: a primary care database [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), n = 340] and a survey of study participants' General Practitioners (GPs, n = 244).

Results: Dementia recorded in HES fully agreed both with CPRD and with GP survey data for 85% of women; it did not agree for 1 and 4%, respectively. Agreement was uncertain for the remaining 14 and 11%, respectively; and among those classified as having uncertain agreement in CPRD, non-specific terms compatible with dementia, such as 'memory loss', were recorded in the CPRD database for 79% of the women. Agreement was significantly better (p < 0.05 for all comparisons) for women with HES diagnoses for Alzheimer's disease (95 and 94% agreement with any dementia for CPRD and GP survey, respectively) and for vascular dementia (88 and 88%, respectively) than for women with a record only of dementia not otherwise specified (70 and 72%, respectively). Dementia in the same woman was first mentioned an average 1.6 (SD 2.6) years earlier in primary care (CPRD) than in hospital (HES) data. Age-specific rates for dementia based on the hospital admission data were lower than the rates based on the primary care data, but were similar if the delay in recording in HES was taken into account.

Conclusions: Dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital admission data for women in England agrees well with primary care records of dementia assessed separately from two different sources, and is sufficiently reliable for epidemiological research.

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
英格兰例行收集的入院数据中记录的痴呆症与初级保健中记录的痴呆症的比较。
背景:英国队列与常规收集的国民健康服务系统(NHS)记录的电子链接为特定病因的入院和死亡提供了几乎完整的随访。NHS 医院数据中记录的痴呆症诊断结果的可靠性并没有很好的记录:我们对英格兰百万妇女研究参与者的样本进行了比较,将常规收集的 NHS 医院数据(Hospital Episode Statistics:HES)中记录的痴呆症与两个不同来源的初级保健信息中记录的痴呆症进行了比较:初级保健数据库[Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD),n = 340]和对研究参与者的全科医生(GPs,n = 244)进行的调查:85%的女性在 HES 中记录的痴呆症数据与 CPRD 和全科医生调查数据完全一致;不一致的分别占 1% 和 4%。其余 14% 和 11% 的数据与 CPRD 数据不完全一致,其中 79% 的妇女在 CPRD 数据库中记录了与痴呆症相符的非特异性术语,如 "记忆力减退"。在 CPRD 数据库中,有 79% 的女性记录了与痴呆症相符的非特异性术语,如 "记忆力减退":常规收集的英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)妇女入院数据中记录的痴呆症与从两个不同来源分别评估的初级医疗记录中记录的痴呆症吻合度较高,对于流行病学研究来说足够可靠。
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
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
9
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to promote debate and discussion on practical and theoretical aspects of epidemiology. Combining statistical approaches with an understanding of the biology of disease, epidemiologists seek to elucidate the social, environmental and host factors related to adverse health outcomes. Although research findings from epidemiologic studies abound in traditional public health journals, little publication space is devoted to discussion of the practical and theoretical concepts that underpin them. Because of its immediate impact on public health, an openly accessible forum is needed in the field of epidemiology to foster such discussion.
期刊最新文献
Explaining biological differences between men and women by gendered mechanisms. Population cause of death estimation using verbal autopsy methods in large-scale field trials of maternal and child health: lessons learned from a 20-year research collaboration in Central Ghana. Dynamics of COVID-19 progression and the long-term influences of measures on pandemic outcomes. Effect size quantification for interrupted time series analysis: implementation in R and analysis for Covid-19 research. Geographical clustering and geographically weighted regression analysis of home delivery and its determinants in developing regions of Ethiopia: a spatial analysis.
×
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:481959085
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