Dataset Information

Cardiac late events in German breast cancer patients: a validation study on the agreement between patient self-reports and information from physicians.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Self-administered health-status questionnaires are important tools in epidemiology. The objective of the presented validation study is to measure the agreement between breast cancer patients' self-reports and their physicians' information on late cardiac events, and to investigate determinants of agreement. To estimate possible misclassification is an important requirement for observational studies on cardiovascular endpoints.

Methods

A retrospective, multi-center cohort study included 11,982 women diagnosed with breast cancer in Germany in 1998-2008. In 2014, a questionnaire survey assessed cardiovascular risk factors and incident cardiac events after therapy. A validation study was conducted, based on a sample of 3091 breast cancer patients from two university hospitals. Among them, 2261 women (73%) sent back the questionnaire on cardiovascular events, and 1316 women gave consent to request medical records from their general practitioners. A total of 1212/1316 (92.1%) medical records could be obtained for validation. Cohen's kappa coefficient was calculated, and multivariate regression was applied to study the influence of patient characteristics on agreement between both data sources.

Results

Overall agreement for the composite endpoint of any cardiac event was 84.5% (kappa 0.35). Of 1055 breast cancer patients reporting no cardiac event, 950 (90%) had no such diagnosis in physicians' medical records. A total of 157 breast cancer survivors indicated a cardiac event, and the same diagnosis was confirmed by GPs for 74 (47%) women. For specific diagnoses, moderate to substantial agreement of self-reports was found for myocardial infarction (kappa 0.54) and stroke (kappa 0.61). Poor to fair agreement was present for angina pectoris, valvular heart disease, arrhythmia, and congestive heart failure. Younger age, higher education and a more recent cancer diagnosis were found to be associated with greater total agreement.

Conclusions

For the composite endpoint, survivors of breast cancer report the absence of cardiac disease accurately. However, for specific diagnoses, self-reported morbidity data from breast cancer patients may not fully agree with information from physicians. The agreement is moderate for acute events like myocardial infarction and stroke, but poor to fair for chronic diseases.

SUBMITTER: Merzenich H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6267788 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cardiac late events in German breast cancer patients: a validation study on the agreement between patient self-reports and information from physicians.

Merzenich Hiltrud H Blettner Maria M Niehoff Dorothea D Schwentner Lukas L Schmidt Marcus M Schmitt Margit M Wollschläger Daniel D

BMC cardiovascular disorders 20181129 1

<h4>Background</h4>Self-administered health-status questionnaires are important tools in epidemiology. The objective of the presented validation study is to measure the agreement between breast cancer patients' self-reports and their physicians' information on late cardiac events, and to investigate determinants of agreement. To estimate possible misclassification is an important requirement for observational studies on cardiovascular endpoints.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective, multi-center cohor ...[more]

PMID: 30497402

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProblems in the usability of health information systems (HISs) are well acknowledged, but research still lacks a validated questionnaire for measuring and monitoring different dimensions of usability of HISs. Such questionnaires are needed not only for research but also for developing usability of HISs from the viewpoint of end-user experiences.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and test the validity of the questionnaire measuring the National Usability-Focused HIS-Scale (NuHISS) among a nationally representative sample of Finnish physicians.MethodsWe utilized 2 cross-sectional data collected from a random sample of Finnish physicians in 2014 (N=3781; of which 2340 [61.9%] were women) and 2017 (N=4018; of which 2604 [64.8%] were women). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (structural equation modeling [SEM]) were applied to test the structural validity of the NuHISS. As the concurrent validity measure, we used the self-reported overall quality of the electronic health record system (school grade) provided by the participants using marginal structural models.ResultsThe exploratory factor analyses with Varimax rotation suggested that the 7-factor solution did offer a good fit to the data in both samples (C2=2136.14 in 2014 and C2=2109.83 in 2017, both P<.001). Moreover, structural equation modelling analyses, using comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean square Residual (SRMR), showed that the 7-factor solution provided an acceptable fit in both samples (CFI=0.92/0.91, TLI=0.92/0.91, NFI=0.92/0.91, RMSEA=0.048/0.049, and SRMR=0.040/0.039). In addition, concurrent validity of this solution was shown to be acceptable. Ease of use, but also all other dimensions, was especially associated with overall quality reports independent of measured confounders. The 7-factor solution included dimensions of technical quality, information quality, feedback, ease of use, benefits, internal collaboration, and cross-organizational collaboration.ConclusionsNuHISS provides a useful tool for measuring usability of HISs among physicians and offers a valid measure for monitoring the long-term development of HISs on a large scale. The relative importance of items needs to be assessed against national electronic health policy goals and complemented with items that have remained outside the NuHISS from the questionnaire when appropriate.

Project description:BackgroundData on resource use are frequently required for healthcare assessments. Studies on healthcare utilization (HCU) in individuals with mental disorders have analyzed both self-reports and administrative data. Source of data may affect the quality of analysis and compromise the accuracy of results. We sought to ascertain the degree of agreement between self-reports and statutory health insurance (SHI) fund claims data from patients with mental disorders.MethodsClaims data from six German SHI and self-reports were obtained along with a cost-effectiveness analysis performed as a part of a controlled prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in 18 psychiatric hospitals in Germany (PsychCare), including patients with pre-defined psychiatric disorders. Self-reports were collected using the German adaption of the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI) questionnaire with a 6-month recall period. Data linkage was performed using a unique pseudonymized identifier. Missing responses were coded as non-use for all analyses. HCU was calculated for inpatient and outpatient care, day-care services, home treatment, and pharmaceuticals. Concordance was measured using Cohen's Kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Regression approaches were used to investigate the effect of independent variables on the agreements.ResultsIn total 274 participants (mean age 47.8 [SD = 14.2] years; 47.08% women) were included in the analysis. No significant differences were observed between the linked and unlinked patients in terms of baseline characteristics. Total agreements values were 63.9% (κ = 0.03; PABAK = 0.28) for outpatient contacts, 69.3% (κ = 0.25; PABAK = 0.39) for medication use, 81.0% (κ = 0.56; PABAK = 0.62) for inpatient days and 86.1% (κ = 0.67; PABAK = 0.72) for day-care services. There was varied quantitative agreement between data sources, with the poorest agreement for outpatient care (ICC [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.10-0.33]) and the best for psychiatric day-care services (ICC [95% CI] = 0.72 [0.66-0.78]). Marital status and time since first treatment positively affected the chance of agreement on utilization of outpatient services.ConclusionsAlthough there were high levels of absolute agreement, the measures of concordance between administrative records and self-reports were generally minimal to moderate. Healthcare investigations should consider using linked or at least different data sources to estimate HCU for specific utilization areas, where unbiased information can be expected.Trial registrationThis study was part of the multi-center controlled PsychCare trial (German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00022535; Date of registration: 2020-10-02).

Project description:BackgroundPublished validation studies have reported different factor structures for the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). The objective of this study was to assess the factor structure of the SCS in a large general population sample representative of the German population.MethodsA German population sample completed the SCS and other self-report measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus was used to test six models previously found in factor analytic studies (unifactorial model, two-factor model, three-factor model, six-factor model, a hierarchical (second order) model with six first-order factors and two second-order factors, and a model with arbitrarily assigned items to six factors). In addition, three bifactor models were also tested: bifactor model #1 with two group factors (SCS positive items, called SCS positive) and SCS negative items, called SCS negative) and one general factor (overall SCS); bifactor model #2, which is a two-tier model with six group factors, three (SCS positive subscales) corresponding to one general dimension (SCS positive) and three (SCS negative subscales) corresponding to the second general dimension (SCS negative); bifactor model #3 with six group factors (six SCS subscales) and one general factor (overall SCS).ResultsThe two-factor model, the six-factor model, and the hierarchical model showed less than ideal, but acceptable fit. The model fit indices for these models were comparable, with no apparent advantage of the six-factor model over the two-factor model. The one-factor model, the three-factor model, and bifactor model #3 showed poor fit. The other two bifactor models showed strong support for two factors: SCS positive and SCS negative.ConclusionThe main results of this study are that, among the German general population, six SCS factors and two SCS factors fit the data reasonably well. While six factors can be modelled, the three negative factors and the three positive factors, respectively, did not reflect reliable or meaningful variance beyond the two summative positive and negative item factors. As such, we recommend the use of two subscale scores to capture a positive factor and a negative factor when administering the German SCS to general population samples and we strongly advise against the use of a total score across all SCS items.

Dataset Information

Cardiac late events in German breast cancer patients: a validation study on the agreement between patient self-reports and information from physicians.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cardiac late events in German breast cancer patients: a validation study on the agreement between patient self-reports and information from physicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets