Defining Mental Health Conditions Within Primary Care Data: A Validation Study With a Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Approach

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI:10.1111/jep.14256

Juan Carlos Bazo-Alvarez, Christina Avgerinou, Danielle Nimmons, Joseph F. Hayes, David Osborn, Claudia Cooper, Kate Walters, Irene Petersen

{"title":"Defining Mental Health Conditions Within Primary Care Data: A Validation Study With a Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Approach","authors":"Juan Carlos Bazo-Alvarez, Christina Avgerinou, Danielle Nimmons, Joseph F. Hayes, David Osborn, Claudia Cooper, Kate Walters, Irene Petersen","doi":"10.1111/jep.14256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To validate codelists for defining a range of mental health (MH) conditions with primary care data, using a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach and without requiring external data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We validated Read codelists, selecting and classifying them in three steps. The qualitative step included an in-depth revision of the codes by six doctors. Simultaneously, the quantitative step performed on UK primary care data included an exploratory factor analysis to cluster Read codes in MH conditions to obtain an independent classification. The statistical results informed the qualitative conclusions, generating a final selection and classification.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>From a preselected list of 2007 Read codes, a total of 1638 were selected by all doctors. Later, they agreed on classifying these codes into 12 categories of MH disorders. From the same preselected list, a total of 1364 were quantitatively selected. Using data from 497,649 persons who used these Read codes at least once, we performed the exploratory factor analysis, retaining five factors (five categories). Both classifications showed good correspondence, while discrepancies informed decisions on reclassification.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We produced a comprehensive set of medical codes lists for 12 MH conditions validated by a combination of clinical consensus panel and quantitative cluster analysis with cross-validation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To validate codelists for defining a range of mental health (MH) conditions with primary care data, using a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach and without requiring external data.

Methods

We validated Read codelists, selecting and classifying them in three steps. The qualitative step included an in-depth revision of the codes by six doctors. Simultaneously, the quantitative step performed on UK primary care data included an exploratory factor analysis to cluster Read codes in MH conditions to obtain an independent classification. The statistical results informed the qualitative conclusions, generating a final selection and classification.

Results

From a preselected list of 2007 Read codes, a total of 1638 were selected by all doctors. Later, they agreed on classifying these codes into 12 categories of MH disorders. From the same preselected list, a total of 1364 were quantitatively selected. Using data from 497,649 persons who used these Read codes at least once, we performed the exploratory factor analysis, retaining five factors (five categories). Both classifications showed good correspondence, while discrepancies informed decisions on reclassification.

Conclusions

We produced a comprehensive set of medical codes lists for 12 MH conditions validated by a combination of clinical consensus panel and quantitative cluster analysis with cross-validation.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.