Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
International Journal of Population Data Science Pub Date : 2024-03-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2364
Elizabeth Kathleen Darling, Olivia Marquez, Alison L Park
{"title":"Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada.","authors":"Elizabeth Kathleen Darling, Olivia Marquez, Alison L Park","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There are two main data sources for perinatal data in Ontario, Canada: the BORN BIS and CIHI-DAD. Such databases are used for perinatal health surveillance and research, and to guide health care related decisions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our primary objective was to examine the level of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Our secondary objectives were to identify the differences between the data sources when identifying a low-risk birth (LRB) cohort and to understand their implications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a population-based cohort study comparing characteristics and clinical outcomes of all linkable births in BIS and CIHI-DAD between 1<sup>st</sup> April 2012 and 31<sup>st</sup> March 2018. We excluded out-of-hospital births, those with invalid healthcare numbers, non-Ontario residents and gestational age <20 weeks. We compared the portion of the cohort that met the criteria of a provincial definition of LRB based on each data source and compared clinical outcomes between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 779,979 eligible births were linkable between the two data sources. After applying the LRB exclusions, there were 129,908 cases in the BIS and 136,184 cases in CIHI-DAD. Most exclusion criteria had almost perfect, substantial or moderate agreement. The agreement for non-cephalic presentation and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (kappa coefficients 0.409 and 0.256, respectively) was fair. Comparison between the two LRB cohorts identified differences in the prevalence of cesarean (14.3% BIS versus 12.0% CIHI-DAD) and NICU admission (8.7% BIS versus 7.5% CIHI-DAD) and only 0.01% difference in the prevalence of ICU admission.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, we found high levels of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Identifying a LRB cohort in either database may be appropriate, with the caveat of appropriate understanding of the collection, coding and definition of certain outcomes. The decision for selecting a database may depend on which variables are most important in a particular analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":36483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Population Data Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"2364"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10949111/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There are two main data sources for perinatal data in Ontario, Canada: the BORN BIS and CIHI-DAD. Such databases are used for perinatal health surveillance and research, and to guide health care related decisions.

Objectives: Our primary objective was to examine the level of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Our secondary objectives were to identify the differences between the data sources when identifying a low-risk birth (LRB) cohort and to understand their implications.

Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study comparing characteristics and clinical outcomes of all linkable births in BIS and CIHI-DAD between 1st April 2012 and 31st March 2018. We excluded out-of-hospital births, those with invalid healthcare numbers, non-Ontario residents and gestational age <20 weeks. We compared the portion of the cohort that met the criteria of a provincial definition of LRB based on each data source and compared clinical outcomes between the groups.

Results: During the study period, 779,979 eligible births were linkable between the two data sources. After applying the LRB exclusions, there were 129,908 cases in the BIS and 136,184 cases in CIHI-DAD. Most exclusion criteria had almost perfect, substantial or moderate agreement. The agreement for non-cephalic presentation and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 (kappa coefficients 0.409 and 0.256, respectively) was fair. Comparison between the two LRB cohorts identified differences in the prevalence of cesarean (14.3% BIS versus 12.0% CIHI-DAD) and NICU admission (8.7% BIS versus 7.5% CIHI-DAD) and only 0.01% difference in the prevalence of ICU admission.

Conclusions: Overall, we found high levels of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Identifying a LRB cohort in either database may be appropriate, with the caveat of appropriate understanding of the collection, coding and definition of certain outcomes. The decision for selecting a database may depend on which variables are most important in a particular analysis.

定义低风险出生队列:比较加拿大安大略省两个围产期数据集的队列研究。
导言:加拿大安大略省有两个主要的围产期数据来源:BORN BIS 和 CIHI-DAD。这些数据库用于围产期健康监测和研究,并为医疗保健相关决策提供指导:我们的首要目标是检查 BIS 和 CIHI-DAD 之间的一致程度。我们的次要目标是确定数据源在识别低风险出生(LRB)队列时的差异,并了解其影响:我们开展了一项基于人群的队列研究,比较了 2012 年 4 月 1 日至 2018 年 3 月 31 日期间 BIS 和 CIHI-DAD 中所有可连接出生婴儿的特征和临床结果。我们排除了医院外分娩、医疗保健号码无效、非安大略省居民和妊娠年龄的分娩结果:在研究期间,有 779,979 例符合条件的新生儿可在两个数据源之间建立联系。应用 LRB 排除法后,BIS 中有 129,908 例,CIHI-DAD 中有 136,184 例。大多数排除标准几乎完全一致、基本一致或中度一致。非颅脑表现和体重指数≥ 40 kg/m2(卡帕系数分别为 0.409 和 0.256)的一致性尚可。比较两个 LRB 队列发现,剖宫产率(14.3% BIS 对 12.0% CIHI-DAD)和入住新生儿重症监护室率(8.7% BIS 对 7.5% CIHI-DAD)存在差异,入住重症监护室率仅有 0.01% 的差异:总体而言,我们发现 BIS 和 CIHI-DAD 的一致性很高。在任何一个数据库中识别低风险人群都是合适的,但要注意对某些结果的收集、编码和定义要有适当的理解。选择数据库的决定可能取决于哪些变量在特定分析中最为重要。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
386
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信