Understanding the quality of ethnicity data recorded in health-related administrative data sources compared with Census 2021 in England.

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine
PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-26 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004507
Cameron Razieh, Bethan Powell, Rosemary Drummond, Isobel L Ward, Jasper Morgan, Myer Glickman, Chris White, Francesco Zaccardi, Jonathan Hope, Veena Raleigh, Ashley Akbari, Nazrul Islam, Thomas Yates, Lisa Murphy, Bilal A Mateen, Kamlesh Khunti, Vahe Nafilyan
{"title":"Understanding the quality of ethnicity data recorded in health-related administrative data sources compared with Census 2021 in England.","authors":"Cameron Razieh, Bethan Powell, Rosemary Drummond, Isobel L Ward, Jasper Morgan, Myer Glickman, Chris White, Francesco Zaccardi, Jonathan Hope, Veena Raleigh, Ashley Akbari, Nazrul Islam, Thomas Yates, Lisa Murphy, Bilal A Mateen, Kamlesh Khunti, Vahe Nafilyan","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used to investigate health inequalities across ethnic groups. While there are some studies showing that the recording of ethnicity in EHR is imperfect, there is no robust evidence on the accuracy between the ethnicity information recorded in various real-world sources and census data.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We linked primary and secondary care NHS England data sources with Census 2021 data and compared individual-level agreement of ethnicity recording in General Practice Extraction Service (GPES) Data for Pandemic Planning and Research (GDPPR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Ethnic Category Information Asset (ECIA), and Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression (TT) with ethnicity reported in the census. Census ethnicity is self-reported and, therefore, regarded as the most reliable population-level source of ethnicity recording. We further assessed the impact of multiple approaches to assigning a person an ethnic category. The number of people that could be linked to census from ECIA, GDPPR, HES, and TT were 47.4m, 43.5m, 47.8m, and 6.3m, respectively. Across all 4 data sources, the White British category had the highest level of agreement with census (≥96%), followed by the Bangladeshi category (≥93%). Levels of agreement for Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese categories were ≥87%, ≥83%, and ≥80% across all sources. Agreement was lower for Mixed (≤75%) and Other (≤71%) categories across all data sources. The categories with the lowest agreement were Gypsy or Irish Traveller (≤6%), Other Black (≤19%), and Any Other Ethnic Group (≤25%) categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Certain ethnic categories across all data sources have high discordance with census ethnic categories. These differences may lead to biased estimates of differences in health outcomes between ethnic groups, a critical data point used when making health policy and planning decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"22 2","pages":"e1004507"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864522/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004507","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used to investigate health inequalities across ethnic groups. While there are some studies showing that the recording of ethnicity in EHR is imperfect, there is no robust evidence on the accuracy between the ethnicity information recorded in various real-world sources and census data.

Methods and findings: We linked primary and secondary care NHS England data sources with Census 2021 data and compared individual-level agreement of ethnicity recording in General Practice Extraction Service (GPES) Data for Pandemic Planning and Research (GDPPR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Ethnic Category Information Asset (ECIA), and Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression (TT) with ethnicity reported in the census. Census ethnicity is self-reported and, therefore, regarded as the most reliable population-level source of ethnicity recording. We further assessed the impact of multiple approaches to assigning a person an ethnic category. The number of people that could be linked to census from ECIA, GDPPR, HES, and TT were 47.4m, 43.5m, 47.8m, and 6.3m, respectively. Across all 4 data sources, the White British category had the highest level of agreement with census (≥96%), followed by the Bangladeshi category (≥93%). Levels of agreement for Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese categories were ≥87%, ≥83%, and ≥80% across all sources. Agreement was lower for Mixed (≤75%) and Other (≤71%) categories across all data sources. The categories with the lowest agreement were Gypsy or Irish Traveller (≤6%), Other Black (≤19%), and Any Other Ethnic Group (≤25%) categories.

Conclusions: Certain ethnic categories across all data sources have high discordance with census ethnic categories. These differences may lead to biased estimates of differences in health outcomes between ethnic groups, a critical data point used when making health policy and planning decisions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
×
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