Dataset Information

International population-based health surveys linked to outcome data: A new resource for public health and epidemiology.

ABSTRACT:

Background

National health surveys linked to vital statistics and health care information provide a growing source of individual-level population health data. Pooling linked surveys across jurisdictions would create comprehensive datasets that are larger than most existing cohort studies, and that have a unique international and population perspective. This paper's objectives are to examine the feasibility of pooling linked population health surveys from three countries, facilitate the examination of health behaviours, and present useful information to assist in the planning of international population health surveillance and research studies.

Data and methods

The design, methodologies and content of the Canadian Community Health Survey (2003 to 2008), the United States National Health Interview Survey (2000, 2005) and the Scottish Health Survey (SHeS) (2003, 2008 to 2010) were examined for comparability and consistency. The feasibility of creating common variables for measuring smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity and diet was assessed. Sample size and estimated mortality events were collected.

Results

The surveys have comparable purposes, designs, sampling and administration methodologies, target populations, exclusions, and content. Similar health behaviour questions allow for comparable variables to be created across the surveys. However, the SHeS uses a more detailed risk factor evaluation for alcohol consumption and diet data. Therefore, comparisons of alcohol consumption and diet data between the SHeS and the other two surveys should be performed with caution. Pooling these linked surveys would create a dataset with over 350,000 participants, 28,424 deaths and over 2.4 million person-years of follow-up.

Discussion

Pooling linked national population health surveys could improve population health research and surveillance. Innovative methodologies must be used to account for survey dissimilarities, and further discussion is needed on how to best access and analyze data across jurisdictions.

SUBMITTER: Fisher S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7611955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.Eligibility criteriaProtocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.Data extraction and synthesisDelphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.ResultsOf 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.ConclusionsThere is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.Prospero registration numberCRD42019138519.