Mind the Gap: A Retrospective Study of Discrepancies in Self-Reported and Administrative Database-Identified Mental Health Issues in Slovenia.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Matej Vinko, Andreja Kukec, Lijana Zaletel-Kragelj
{"title":"Mind the Gap: A Retrospective Study of Discrepancies in Self-Reported and Administrative Database-Identified Mental Health Issues in Slovenia.","authors":"Matej Vinko, Andreja Kukec, Lijana Zaletel-Kragelj","doi":"10.2478/sjph-2025-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study assessed discrepancies between self-reported and administrative data sources in identifying mental health issues in Slovenia, and investigated associated socio-demographic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were linked from the 2019 Slovenian European Health Interview Survey (EHIS; n=9,900) and national health administrative databases capturing inpatient hospitalisations, outpatient prescription drugs and mental health-related sick leave. Mental health issues were identified in EHIS by self-report and in administrative databases using diagnostic codes and medication claims. Socio-demographic factors were obtained from EHIS. Discrepancies were assessed and multinomial logistic regression was used to analyse the association between these factors and the source of case identification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 9,900 EHIS respondents, 1,336 (13.5%) self-reported mental health issues, while 1,675 (16.9%) were identified in administrative databases. Only 613 individuals (4.6% of the total sample) were identified in both sources. Older age was associated with being identified in both data sources and administrative data only compared to not being identified. Females and unemployed persons were more likely than males and employed persons to be identified as having mental health issues, regardless of the data source. Compared to those with primary education or lower, individuals with higher education were less likely to be identified in administrative data only or in both data sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>discrepancies exist between self-reported and administrative data sources in identifying mental health issues. Discrepancies are associated with socio-demographic factors and may lead to different interpretations of population mental health. This study underscores the importance of cautiously interpreting self-reported and administrative health data in public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":45127,"journal":{"name":"Zdravstveno Varstvo","volume":"64 3","pages":"143-151"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12406983/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zdravstveno Varstvo","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/sjph-2025-0018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study assessed discrepancies between self-reported and administrative data sources in identifying mental health issues in Slovenia, and investigated associated socio-demographic factors.

Methods: Data were linked from the 2019 Slovenian European Health Interview Survey (EHIS; n=9,900) and national health administrative databases capturing inpatient hospitalisations, outpatient prescription drugs and mental health-related sick leave. Mental health issues were identified in EHIS by self-report and in administrative databases using diagnostic codes and medication claims. Socio-demographic factors were obtained from EHIS. Discrepancies were assessed and multinomial logistic regression was used to analyse the association between these factors and the source of case identification.

Results: Of the 9,900 EHIS respondents, 1,336 (13.5%) self-reported mental health issues, while 1,675 (16.9%) were identified in administrative databases. Only 613 individuals (4.6% of the total sample) were identified in both sources. Older age was associated with being identified in both data sources and administrative data only compared to not being identified. Females and unemployed persons were more likely than males and employed persons to be identified as having mental health issues, regardless of the data source. Compared to those with primary education or lower, individuals with higher education were less likely to be identified in administrative data only or in both data sources.

Conclusions: discrepancies exist between self-reported and administrative data sources in identifying mental health issues. Discrepancies are associated with socio-demographic factors and may lead to different interpretations of population mental health. This study underscores the importance of cautiously interpreting self-reported and administrative health data in public health.

Abstract Image

注意差距:对斯洛文尼亚自我报告和行政数据库确定的精神健康问题差异的回顾性研究。
背景:本研究评估了自我报告和行政数据来源在确定斯洛文尼亚精神健康问题方面的差异,并调查了相关的社会人口因素。方法:数据来自2019年斯洛文尼亚欧洲健康访谈调查(EHIS; n= 9900)和国家卫生行政数据库,包括住院患者、门诊处方药和精神健康相关病假。在EHIS中,通过自我报告和使用诊断代码和药物索赔在行政数据库中确定了精神健康问题。社会人口学因素通过EHIS获得。对差异进行评估,并使用多项逻辑回归分析这些因素与病例识别来源之间的关系。结果:在9900名EHIS受访者中,1336名(13.5%)自我报告了心理健康问题,而1675名(16.9%)在管理数据库中被确定。在两个来源中,只有613人(占总样本的4.6%)被确定。与未被识别相比,年龄较大的人仅在数据源和管理数据中被识别。无论数据来源如何,女性和失业人员比男性和就业人员更有可能被确定为有精神健康问题。与受过初等教育或更低教育的人相比,受过高等教育的人不太可能仅在行政数据中或在两个数据来源中被确定。结论:在确定心理健康问题方面,自我报告和行政数据来源之间存在差异。差异与社会人口因素有关,可能导致对人口心理健康的不同解释。这项研究强调了谨慎解释公共卫生中自我报告和行政卫生数据的重要性。
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
Zdravstveno Varstvo
Zdravstveno Varstvo PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
23 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信