Validity of Military Service as Reported on U.S. Death Certificates.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Epidemiology Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-01 DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001983
Candice Y Johnson, Lucy Akushevich, Heather R Batchelder, Ashley E Price, Katelyn M Holliday, Elliot D Hill, Laura J Fish, Devdutta Sangvai, Truls Østbye
{"title":"Validity of Military Service as Reported on U.S. Death Certificates.","authors":"Candice Y Johnson, Lucy Akushevich, Heather R Batchelder, Ashley E Price, Katelyn M Holliday, Elliot D Hill, Laura J Fish, Devdutta Sangvai, Truls Østbye","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although death certificates are widely used to study mortality in the general population, their use to study mortality among individuals with military service has been limited in part by a lack of information on the validity of military service reported on death certificates. Our objective was to estimate bias parameters for the misclassification of military service to facilitate quantitative bias analysis in studies of mortality in military populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included 2014-2021 death certificates from decedents aged 18-64 years who resided and died in Alabama, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, or Oregon. Death certificates were linked to military service records by the U.S. Defense Manpower Data Center using Social Security numbers. Military service was defined as any service in the Regular, Reserve, or National Guard components of the U.S. military in Defense Manpower Data Center records. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for military service reported on death certificates stratified by demographics, military characteristics, and manner of death.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 467,075 death certificates included, 9.3% indicated military service; however, military records showed that 10.9% had served (sensitivity 81.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.2%, 81.8%; specificity 99.5%, 95% CI = 99.5%, 99.5%). Sensitivity was lower among female (72.3%) compared with male (82.2%) servicemembers and was particularly low for those who had never served on active duty (63.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Military service was underreported on death certificates, especially for female servicemembers and those without active-duty service. The bias parameters we estimated can be used to account for this misclassification when analyzing death certificates.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"553-558"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001983","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although death certificates are widely used to study mortality in the general population, their use to study mortality among individuals with military service has been limited in part by a lack of information on the validity of military service reported on death certificates. Our objective was to estimate bias parameters for the misclassification of military service to facilitate quantitative bias analysis in studies of mortality in military populations.

Methods: We included 2014-2021 death certificates from decedents aged 18-64 years who resided and died in Alabama, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, or Oregon. Death certificates were linked to military service records by the U.S. Defense Manpower Data Center using Social Security numbers. Military service was defined as any service in the Regular, Reserve, or National Guard components of the U.S. military in Defense Manpower Data Center records. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for military service reported on death certificates stratified by demographics, military characteristics, and manner of death.

Results: Among the 467,075 death certificates included, 9.3% indicated military service; however, military records showed that 10.9% had served (sensitivity 81.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.2%, 81.8%; specificity 99.5%, 95% CI = 99.5%, 99.5%). Sensitivity was lower among female (72.3%) compared with male (82.2%) servicemembers and was particularly low for those who had never served on active duty (63.5%).

Conclusions: Military service was underreported on death certificates, especially for female servicemembers and those without active-duty service. The bias parameters we estimated can be used to account for this misclassification when analyzing death certificates.

美国死亡证明上的服兵役有效期。
背景:虽然死亡证明被广泛用于研究一般人口的死亡率,但将其用于研究服兵役个人的死亡率受到限制,部分原因是缺乏关于死亡证明上所报告的兵役有效性的信息。我们的目的是估计误分兵役的偏倚参数,以便在军人死亡率研究中进行定量偏倚分析。方法:我们纳入了2014-2021年在阿拉巴马州、密歇根州、明尼苏达州、蒙大拿州或俄勒冈州居住并死亡的18-64岁死者的死亡证明。美国国防人力数据中心(DMDC)使用社会安全号码将死亡证明与兵役记录联系起来。军事服务被定义为在DMDC记录中美国军队的正规,预备役或国民警卫队的任何服务。我们估计了根据人口统计学、军事特征和死亡方式分层的死亡证明报告的兵役的敏感性、特异性和预测值。结果:467,075份死亡证明中,9.3%为服兵役;然而,军事记录显示10.9%曾服役(敏感性81.5%,95%可信区间[CI]: 81.2-81.8%;特异性99.5%,95% CI: 99.5-99.5%)。与男性(82.2%)相比,女性(72.3%)的敏感性较低,而从未服过现役的军人(63.5%)的敏感性尤其低。结论:死亡证明上服兵役的情况被少报,尤其是女性军人和没有服现役的人。在分析死亡证明时,我们估计的偏差参数可用于解释这种错误分类。
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
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
×
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
小红书