Comparison of National Data Sources to Assess Preventive Care in the US Population.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Taksler GB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8012018 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Preventive care delivery is an important quality outcome, and electronic data reports are being used increasingly to track these services. It is highly informative when electronic data sources are compared to information manually extracted from medical charts to assess validity and completeness.This cross-sectional study used a random sample of Medicaid-insured patients seen at 43 community health centers in 2011 to calculate standard measures of correspondence between manual chart review and two automated sources (electronic health records [EHRs] and Medicaid claims), comparing documentation of orders for and receipt of ten preventive services (n=150 patients/service). Data were analyzed in 2015.Using manual chart review as the gold standard, automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect to perfect agreement (?=0.96-1.0) for services received within the primary care setting (e.g., BMI, blood pressure). Receipt of breast and colorectal cancer screenings, services commonly referred out, showed moderate (?=0.42) to substantial (?=0.62) agreement, respectively. Automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect agreement (?=0.83-0.97) for documentation of ordered services. Medicaid claims showed near-perfect agreement (?=0.87) for hyperlipidemia and diabetes screening, and substantial agreement (?=0.67-0.80) for receipt of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings, and influenza vaccination. Claims showed moderate agreement (?=0.59) for chlamydia screening receipt. Medicaid claims did not capture ordered or unbilled services.Findings suggest that automated EHR and claims data provide valid sources for measuring receipt of most preventive services; however, ordered and unbilled services were primarily captured via EHR data and completed referrals were more often documented in claims data.
| S-EPMC5067199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:There is widespread concern about increases in antibiotic use, but comparative data from different European countries on rates of use are lacking. This study was designed to measure and understand the variation in antibiotic utilization across five European countries. METHODS:Seven European healthcare databases with access to primary care data from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK were used to measure and compare the point and 1-year-period prevalence of antibiotic use between 2004 and 2009. Descriptive analyses were stratified by gender, age and type of antibiotic. Separate analyses were performed to measure the most common underlying indications leading to the prescription of an antibiotic. RESULTS:The average yearly period prevalence of antibiotic use varied from 15 (Netherlands) to 30 (Spain) users per 100 patients. A higher prevalence of antibiotic use by female patients, the very young (0-9 years) and old (80+ years), was observed in all databases. The lowest point prevalence was recorded in June and September and ranged from 0.51 (Netherlands) to 1.47 (UK) per 100 patients per day. Twelve percent (Netherlands) to forty-nine (Spain) percent of all users were diagnosed with a respiratory tract infection, and the most common type of antibiotic prescribed were penicillin. CONCLUSION:Using identical methodology in seven EU databases to assess antibiotic use allowed us to compare drug usage patterns across Europe. Our results contribute quantitatively to the true understanding of similarities and differences in the use of antibiotic agents in different EU countries.
| S-EPMC4918309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth professionals, policy-makers and researchers need to be able to explore potential associations between prevalence rates and quality of care with a range of possible determinants including socio-economic deprivation and morbidity levels to determine the impact of commissioning and service delivery. In the UK, data in England are only available nationally at practice postcode level. In Scotland, such data are available based on an aggregate of the practices population's postcodes. The use of data assigned to the practice postcode may underestimate the association between ill health and income deprivation. Here, we report on the impact of using data assigned to the practice population by comparing analyses using English and Scottish data.ResultsIncome deprivation based on data assigned to the practice postcode under-estimated deprivation compared to using income deprivation data assigned to the practice population for the five least deprived deciles, and over-estimated deprivation for the five most deprived deciles. The biggest differences were found for the most deprived decile. A similar trend was found for limiting long-term illness (LLTI). Differences between the QOF prevalence rates of the least and most deprived deciles using practice postcode data were similar (0.2% points or less) in England and Scotland for 8 out of 10 clinical domains. Using practice population assigned deprivation, differences in the prevalence rate between the least and most deprived deciles increase for all clinical domains. A similar trend was again found for LLTI. Using practice population assigned deprivation, differences for population achievement increase for all CHD quality indicators with the exception of beta-blockers (CHD10). With practice postcode assigned deprivation, significant differences between the least and most deprived deciles were found for 2 out 8 indicators, compared to 5 using practice population assigned deprivation. For LLTI differences between the lowest and most deprived deciles increased for all indicators when ill health assigned to the practice population was used.ConclusionWe have found, through comparing deprivation and ill health data assigned to either the practice postcode or the practice population postcode in Scotland, that analyses based on practice postcode assigned data under-estimated the relationship between deprivation and ill health for both prevalence and quality care. Given the importance of understanding the effect of deprivation and ill health on a range of determinants related to health care, policy makers should ensure that practice population data are available and used at national level in England and elsewhere where possible.
| S-EPMC2490685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently, health screening recommendations have gone beyond screening for early-stage, asymptomatic disease to include "screening" for presently experienced health problems and symptoms using self-report questionnaires. We examined recommendations from three major national guideline organizations to determine the consistency of recommendations, identify sources of divergent recommendations, and determine if guideline organizations have identified any direct randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence for the effectiveness of questionnaire-based screening.We reviewed recommendation statements listed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC), and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) as of 5 September 2016. Eligible recommendations focused on using self-report questionnaires to identify patients with presently experienced health problems or symptoms. Within each recommendation and accompanying evidence review we identified screening RCTs.We identified 22 separate recommendations on questionnaire-based screening, including three CTFPHC recommendations against screening, eight UKNSC recommendations against screening, four USPSTF recommendations in favor of screening (alcohol misuse, adolescent depression, adult depression, intimate partner violence), and seven USPSTF recommendations that did not recommend for or against screening. In the four cases where the USPSTF recommended screening, either the CTFPHC, the UKNSC, or both recommended against. When recommendations diverged, the USPSTF expressed confidence in benefits based on indirect evidence, evaluated potential harms as minimal, and did not consider cost or resource use. CTFPHC and UKNSC recommendations against screening, on the other hand, focused on the lack of direct evidence of benefit and raised concerns about harms to patients and resource use. Of six RCTs that directly evaluated screening interventions, five did not report any statistically significant primary or secondary health outcomes in favor of screening, and one trial reported equivocal results.Only the USPSTF has made any recommendations for screening with questionnaires for presently experienced problems or symptoms. The CTFPHC and UKNSC recommended against screening in all of their recommendations. Differences in recommendations appear to reflect differences in willingness to assume benefit from indirect evidence and different approaches to assessing possible harms and resource consumption. There were no examples in any recommendations of RCTs with direct evidence of improved health outcomes.
| S-EPMC5549533 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8086718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Initiatives to optimise preconception health are emerging following growing recognition that this may improve the health and well-being of women and men of reproductive age and optimise health in their children. To inform and evaluate such initiatives, guidance is required on indicators that describe and monitor population-level preconception health. We searched relevant databases and websites (March 2021) to identify national and international preconception guidelines, recommendations and policy reports. These were reviewed to identify preconception indicators. Indicators were aligned with a measure describing the prevalence of the indicator as recorded in national population-based data sources in England. From 22 documents reviewed, we identified 66 indicators across 12 domains. Domains included wider (social/economic) determinants of health; health care; reproductive health and family planning; health behaviours; environmental exposures; cervical screening; immunisation and infections; mental health, physical health; medication and genetic risk. Sixty-five of the 66 indicators were reported in at least one national routine health data set, survey or cohort study. A measure of preconception health assessment and care was not identified in any current national data source. Perspectives from three (healthcare) professionals described how indicator assessment and monitoring may influence patient care and inform awareness campaign development. This review forms the foundation for developing a national surveillance system for preconception health in England. The identified indicators can be assessed using national data sources to determine the population's preconception needs, improve patient care, inform and evaluate new campaigns and interventions and enhance accountability from responsible agencies to improve preconception health.
| S-EPMC7612507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health equity research in transplantation has largely relied on national data sources, yet the availability of social determinants of health (SDOH) data varies widely among these sources. We sought to characterize the extent to which national data sources contain SDOH data applicable to end-stage organ disease (ESOD) and transplant patients. We reviewed 10 active national data sources based in the United States. For each data source, we examined patient inclusion criteria and explored strengths and limitations regarding SDOH data, using the National Institutes of Health PhenX toolkit of SDOH as a data collection instrument. Of the 28 SDOH variables reviewed, eight-core demographic variables were included in ≥80% of the data sources, and seven variables that described elements of social status ranged between 30 and 60% inclusion. Variables regarding identity, healthcare access, and social need were poorly represented (≤20%) across the data sources, and five of these variables were included in none of the data sources. The results of our review highlight the need for improved SDOH data collection systems in ESOD and transplant patients via: enhanced inter-registry collaboration, incorporation of standardized SDOH variables into existing data sources, and transplant center and consortium-based investigation and innovation.
| S-EPMC9547872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: Information on diabetes prevalence in the general population is scarce and often based on extrapolations. We evaluated whether prevalence could be estimated from routine data sources. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The sources were 1) hospital discharges (2008, n = 828,171), 2) death registry (2007/2008, n = 118,659), and 3) Swiss Health Survey (SHS; 2007, n = 18,665). Persons without diabetes as underlying cause of death (death registry) or principal diagnosis (hospital discharges) were regarded as surrogate for a general population random sample. RESULTS: In those aged 20-84 years, 4.5% of men and 3% of women were expected to have diabetes. By source, estimations were 4.4 and 2.8% (hospital discharges), 3.8 and 3.1% (death registry), and 4.9 and 3.7% (SHS) for men and women, respectively. Among sources, age-sex patterns were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In countries with adequate data quality, combination of routine data may provide valid and reliable estimations of diabetes prevalence. Our figures suggest that International Diabetes Federation extrapolations substantially overestimate diabetes prevalence in Switzerland.
| S-EPMC3198273 | biostudies-other
Project description:Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide with far-reaching socio-economic implications in society. The adoption of preventive practices by the public remains the mainstay in reducing the spread of COVID-19 but there is a dearth of validated tools to assess such infection prevention practices related to pandemics. This study was conducted to develop and validate a questionnaire for the assessment of preventive practices against COVID-19 in the general population. It was done following a standardized protocol involving questionnaire development through literature review, focused group discussions, in-depth interviews, expert opinion, and pre-testing. This was followed by the validation of the questionnaire through a cross-sectional survey on 108 individuals from diverse backgrounds in New Delhi, India in July 2020. Exploratory factor analysis was used to evaluate construct validity. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The developed questionnaire for assessing preventive practices consists of two sections: the first section of 18 items to evaluate preventive practices and the second section of 19 items for assessing various reasons for deficiencies in the preventive practices. The first section has good content validity (CVR = 0.81 and S-CVI/Av = 0.97) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.82). Thus, this questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool for the comprehensive assessment of preventive practices and barriers related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be useful in assessing the preparedness of the public and will be helpful to policymakers in designing appropriate interventions for protection against COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7899917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMeasuring retention is critical for antiretroviral therapy (ART) management and program monitoring; however, many definitions and data sources, usually from single health facilities, are used. We used routine electronic data, linked across facilities, to examine the impact of definitions and data sources on retention estimates among women in Cape Town, South Africa.DesignRetrospective cohort study.MethodsWe compiled routine electronic laboratory, pharmacy and clinic visit data for 617 women who started ART during pregnancy (2013-2014) and estimated 24-month retention using different definitions and data sources. We used logistic regression to assess consistency of associations between risk factors and retention, and receiver operating characteristics analyses to describe how different retention estimates predict viremia at 12 months on ART.ResultsUsing all available data sources, retention ranged from 41% (no gap >180 days) to 72% (100% 12-month visit constancy). Laboratory data (expected infrequently) underestimated retention compared with clinic visit data that identified more than 80% of women considered retained in all definitions. In all estimates, associations with known risk factors for nonretention remained consistent and retention declined over time: 77, 65 and 58% retained using all data sources in months 6-12, 12-18 and 18-24, respectively (P < 0.001). The 180-day gap definition was most strongly associated with viremia (odds ratio 24.3 95% confidence interval 12.0-48.9, all data sources).ConclusionResearchers must carefully consider the most appropriate retention definition and data source depending on available data. Presenting more than one approach may be warranted to obtain estimates that are context-appropriate and comparable across settings.
| S-EPMC7109335 | biostudies-literature