Agreement between self-report and administrative health data on occurrence of non-cancer chronic disease among participants of the BC generations project

Comparison of outcomes of the 50-year follow-up of a randomized trial assessed by study questionnaire and by data linkage: The CONCUR study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Self-reported questionnaires on health status after randomized trials can be time-consuming, costly, and potentially unreliable. Administrative data sets may provide cost-effective, less biased information, but it is uncertain how administrative and self-reported data compare to identify chronic conditions in a New Zealand cohort. This study aimed to determine whether record linkage could replace self-reported questionnaires to identify chronic conditions that were the outcomes of interest for trial follow-up.

METHODS

Participants in 50-year follow-up of a randomized trial were asked to complete a questionnaire and to consent to accessing administrative data. The proportion of participants with diabetes, pre-diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, mental health disorders, and asthma was calculated using each data source and agreement between data sources assessed.

RESULTS

Participants were aged 49 years (SD = 1, n = 424, 50% male). Agreement between questionnaire and administrative data was slight for pre-diabetes (kappa = 0.10), fair for hyperlipidaemia (kappa = 0.27), substantial for diabetes (kappa = 0.65), and moderate for other conditions (all kappa >0.42). Administrative data alone identified two to three times more cases than the questionnaire for all outcomes except hypertension and mental health disorders, where the questionnaire alone identified one to two times more cases than administrative data. Combining all sources increased case detection for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of questionnaire, pharmaceutical, and laboratory data with expert panel review were required to identify participants with chronic conditions of interest in this follow-up of a clinical trial.

Consistency between self-reported disease diagnosis and clinical assessment and under-reporting for chronic conditions: data from a community-based study in Xi'an, China

Aims

The current study aims to investigate the consistency between the surveyees' self-reported disease diagnosis and clinical assessment of eight major chronic conditions using community-based survey data collected in Xi'an, China in 2017. With a focus on under-reporting patients, we aim to explore its magnitude and associated factors, to provide an important basis for disease surveillance, health assessment and resource allocation, and public health decision-making and services.

Methods

Questionnaires were administered to collect self-reported chronic condition prevalence among the study participants, while physical examinations and laboratory tests were conducted for clinical assessment. For each of the eight chronic conditions, the sensitivity, specificity, under-reporting, over-reporting, and agreement were calculated. Log-binomial regression analysis was employed to identify potential factors that may influence the consistency of chronic condition reporting.

Results

A total of 2,272 participants were included in the analysis. Four out of the eight chronic conditions displayed under-reporting exceeding 50%. The highest under-reporting was observed for goiter [85.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 85.25-86.62%], hyperuricemia (83.94, 95% CI: 83.22-84.66%), and thyroid nodules (72.89, 95% CI: 72.02-73.76%). Log-binomial regression analysis indicated that senior age and high BMI were potential factors associated with the under-reporting of chronic condition status in the study population.

Conclusion

The self-reported disease diagnosis by respondents and clinical assessment data exhibit significant inconsistency for all eight chronic conditions. Large proportions of patients with multiple chronic conditions were under-reported in Xi'an, China. Combining relevant potential factors, targeted health screenings for high-risk populations might be an effective method for identifying under-reporting patients.