南卡罗来纳州出生证明数据中妊娠体重增加记录的验证

Oluwatosin A. Momodu, Ronnie D. Horner, Jihong Liu, Elizabeth Crouch, Brian Chen
{"title":"南卡罗来纳州出生证明数据中妊娠体重增加记录的验证","authors":"Oluwatosin A. Momodu, Ronnie D. Horner, Jihong Liu, Elizabeth Crouch, Brian Chen","doi":"10.1007/s44250-023-00040-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective To examine the accuracy of gestational weight gain (GWG) reported on birth certificates (BCs) in comparison with electronic medical records (EMRs), the gold standard. Methods BC data and EMR data were from a random sample of pregnant women who enrolled in CenteringPregnancy program, a type of group-based prenatal care, at three obstetric clinics in South Carolina between 2015 and 2019 (n = 206). Retrospective review of EMR data on patients’ prepregnancy BMI and GWG according to 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines was conducted. Analyses involved summarizing the variables by their mean and mean differences per data source, and then calculating percent-weighted agreement and kappa statistics. Results The mean values of BMI, delivery weight and total weight gain were similar between BC and EMRs. Data correlation for variables was high for both data sources (height: r = 0.94, prepregnancy weight: r = 0.93, prepregnancy BMI: r = 0.92, delivery weight: r = 0.96, total weight gain: r = 0.60). The BCs slightly underestimated the proportion of women in the normal-weight BMI category but overestimated the proportion in the overweight BMI category. Additionally, BCs slightly overestimated women with inadequate GWG and underestimated those with excessive GWG. Overall, the BC and EMR data were in agreement regarding prepregnancy BMI (weighted-agreement = 90%, Kappa = 0.78) and GWG categories (weighted-agreement = 84%, Kappa = 0.63). Conclusion BC estimates of prepregnancy BMI and GWG categories were similar to those recorded in the EMRs. The South Carolina BC database is a valid database for gestational weight and can provide reasonable estimates for the state in the evaluation of the CenteringPregnancy program.","PeriodicalId":72826,"journal":{"name":"Discover health systems","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of gestational weight gain records on South Carolina birth certificate data\",\"authors\":\"Oluwatosin A. Momodu, Ronnie D. Horner, Jihong Liu, Elizabeth Crouch, Brian Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44250-023-00040-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective To examine the accuracy of gestational weight gain (GWG) reported on birth certificates (BCs) in comparison with electronic medical records (EMRs), the gold standard. Methods BC data and EMR data were from a random sample of pregnant women who enrolled in CenteringPregnancy program, a type of group-based prenatal care, at three obstetric clinics in South Carolina between 2015 and 2019 (n = 206). Retrospective review of EMR data on patients’ prepregnancy BMI and GWG according to 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines was conducted. Analyses involved summarizing the variables by their mean and mean differences per data source, and then calculating percent-weighted agreement and kappa statistics. Results The mean values of BMI, delivery weight and total weight gain were similar between BC and EMRs. Data correlation for variables was high for both data sources (height: r = 0.94, prepregnancy weight: r = 0.93, prepregnancy BMI: r = 0.92, delivery weight: r = 0.96, total weight gain: r = 0.60). The BCs slightly underestimated the proportion of women in the normal-weight BMI category but overestimated the proportion in the overweight BMI category. Additionally, BCs slightly overestimated women with inadequate GWG and underestimated those with excessive GWG. Overall, the BC and EMR data were in agreement regarding prepregnancy BMI (weighted-agreement = 90%, Kappa = 0.78) and GWG categories (weighted-agreement = 84%, Kappa = 0.63). Conclusion BC estimates of prepregnancy BMI and GWG categories were similar to those recorded in the EMRs. The South Carolina BC database is a valid database for gestational weight and can provide reasonable estimates for the state in the evaluation of the CenteringPregnancy program.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72826,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discover health systems\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discover health systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44250-023-00040-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discover health systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44250-023-00040-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较出生证明(bc)中妊娠体重增加(GWG)与电子病历(emr)的准确性。方法BC数据和EMR数据来自2015年至2019年期间在南卡罗来纳州三家产科诊所参加CenteringPregnancy计划(一种基于群体的产前护理)的孕妇随机样本(n = 206)。根据2009年医学研究所指南对患者孕前BMI和GWG的EMR数据进行回顾性分析。分析包括根据每个数据源的平均值和平均值差异汇总变量,然后计算百分比加权协议和kappa统计。结果BC组和EMRs组的BMI、分娩体重和总增重的平均值相似。两个数据源的变量数据相关性都很高(身高:r = 0.94,孕前体重:r = 0.93,孕前BMI: r = 0.92,分娩体重:r = 0.96,总体重增加:r = 0.60)。研究人员略微低估了体重指数正常的女性比例,但高估了体重指数超重的女性比例。此外,bc略微高估了GWG不足的女性,而低估了GWG过高的女性。总体而言,BC和EMR数据在孕前BMI(加权一致性= 90%,Kappa = 0.78)和GWG类别(加权一致性= 84%,Kappa = 0.63)方面是一致的。结论BC估计的孕前BMI和GWG分类与EMRs记录的相似。南卡罗来纳州BC数据库是一个有效的妊娠体重数据库,可以为该州评估CenteringPregnancy项目提供合理的估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of gestational weight gain records on South Carolina birth certificate data
Abstract Objective To examine the accuracy of gestational weight gain (GWG) reported on birth certificates (BCs) in comparison with electronic medical records (EMRs), the gold standard. Methods BC data and EMR data were from a random sample of pregnant women who enrolled in CenteringPregnancy program, a type of group-based prenatal care, at three obstetric clinics in South Carolina between 2015 and 2019 (n = 206). Retrospective review of EMR data on patients’ prepregnancy BMI and GWG according to 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines was conducted. Analyses involved summarizing the variables by their mean and mean differences per data source, and then calculating percent-weighted agreement and kappa statistics. Results The mean values of BMI, delivery weight and total weight gain were similar between BC and EMRs. Data correlation for variables was high for both data sources (height: r = 0.94, prepregnancy weight: r = 0.93, prepregnancy BMI: r = 0.92, delivery weight: r = 0.96, total weight gain: r = 0.60). The BCs slightly underestimated the proportion of women in the normal-weight BMI category but overestimated the proportion in the overweight BMI category. Additionally, BCs slightly overestimated women with inadequate GWG and underestimated those with excessive GWG. Overall, the BC and EMR data were in agreement regarding prepregnancy BMI (weighted-agreement = 90%, Kappa = 0.78) and GWG categories (weighted-agreement = 84%, Kappa = 0.63). Conclusion BC estimates of prepregnancy BMI and GWG categories were similar to those recorded in the EMRs. The South Carolina BC database is a valid database for gestational weight and can provide reasonable estimates for the state in the evaluation of the CenteringPregnancy program.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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