评估欧洲围产期健康:常规人口出生数据来源的比较。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Marianne Philibert, Mika Gissler, Oscar Zurriaga, Serena Donati, Zeljka Drausnik, Günther Heller, Alison Macfarlane, Ashna Mohangoo, Luule Sakkeus, Vlad Tica, Petr Velebil, Jeannette Klimont, Lisa Broeders, Tonia A Rihs, Jennifer Zeitlin
{"title":"评估欧洲围产期健康:常规人口出生数据来源的比较。","authors":"Marianne Philibert, Mika Gissler, Oscar Zurriaga, Serena Donati, Zeljka Drausnik, Günther Heller, Alison Macfarlane, Ashna Mohangoo, Luule Sakkeus, Vlad Tica, Petr Velebil, Jeannette Klimont, Lisa Broeders, Tonia A Rihs, Jennifer Zeitlin","doi":"10.1111/ppe.13178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>International comparisons of population birth data provide essential benchmarks for evaluating perinatal health policies.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to describe routine national data sources in Europe by their ability to provide core perinatal health indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Euro-Peristat Network collected routine national data on a recommended set of core indicators from 2015 to 2021 using a federated protocol based on a common data model with 16 data items. Data providers completed an online questionnaire to describe the sources used in each country. We classified countries by the number of data items they provided (all 16, 15-14, < 14).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 29 out of the 31 countries that provided data responded to the survey. Routine data sources included birth certificates (15 countries), electronic medical records (EMR) from delivery hospitalisations (16 countries), direct entry by health providers (9 countries), EMR from other care providers (7 countries) and Hospital Discharge Summaries (7 countries). Completeness of population coverage was at least 98%, with 17 countries reporting 100%. These databases most often included mothers giving birth in the national territory, regardless of nationality or place of residence (24 countries), whereas others register births to residents only. In 20 countries, routine sources were linked, including linkage between birth and death certificates (16 countries). Countries providing all 16 items (N = 8) were more likely to use EMRs from delivery hospitalisations (100%) compared to 50% and 11% in countries with 15-14 items (N = 12) and < 14 items (N = 9), respectively. Linkage was also more common in these countries (100%) versus 75% and 56%, respectively. Other data source characteristics did not differ by the ability to provide data on core perinatal indicators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are wide differences between countries in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. Countries using EMR linking to other sources had the best data availability.</p>","PeriodicalId":19698,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Perinatal Health in Europe: A Comparison of Routine Population Birth Data Sources.\",\"authors\":\"Marianne Philibert, Mika Gissler, Oscar Zurriaga, Serena Donati, Zeljka Drausnik, Günther Heller, Alison Macfarlane, Ashna Mohangoo, Luule Sakkeus, Vlad Tica, Petr Velebil, Jeannette Klimont, Lisa Broeders, Tonia A Rihs, Jennifer Zeitlin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ppe.13178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>International comparisons of population birth data provide essential benchmarks for evaluating perinatal health policies.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to describe routine national data sources in Europe by their ability to provide core perinatal health indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Euro-Peristat Network collected routine national data on a recommended set of core indicators from 2015 to 2021 using a federated protocol based on a common data model with 16 data items. Data providers completed an online questionnaire to describe the sources used in each country. We classified countries by the number of data items they provided (all 16, 15-14, < 14).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 29 out of the 31 countries that provided data responded to the survey. Routine data sources included birth certificates (15 countries), electronic medical records (EMR) from delivery hospitalisations (16 countries), direct entry by health providers (9 countries), EMR from other care providers (7 countries) and Hospital Discharge Summaries (7 countries). Completeness of population coverage was at least 98%, with 17 countries reporting 100%. These databases most often included mothers giving birth in the national territory, regardless of nationality or place of residence (24 countries), whereas others register births to residents only. In 20 countries, routine sources were linked, including linkage between birth and death certificates (16 countries). Countries providing all 16 items (N = 8) were more likely to use EMRs from delivery hospitalisations (100%) compared to 50% and 11% in countries with 15-14 items (N = 12) and < 14 items (N = 9), respectively. Linkage was also more common in these countries (100%) versus 75% and 56%, respectively. Other data source characteristics did not differ by the ability to provide data on core perinatal indicators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are wide differences between countries in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. Countries using EMR linking to other sources had the best data availability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13178\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13178","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:人口出生数据的国际比较为评估围产期保健政策提供了重要的基准。目的:本研究旨在通过提供核心围产期健康指标的能力描述欧洲常规国家数据来源。方法:Euro-Peristat网络使用基于共有16个数据项的通用数据模型的联合协议,收集了2015年至2021年推荐的一套核心指标的常规国家数据。数据提供者填写了一份在线问卷,描述每个国家使用的数据来源。我们根据他们提供的数据项目的数量对国家进行了分类(全部为16,15-14)。结果:在提供数据的31个国家中,共有29个国家对调查做出了回应。常规数据来源包括出生证明(15个国家)、分娩住院的电子病历(16个国家)、卫生保健提供者直接录入(9个国家)、其他保健提供者的电子病历(7个国家)和出院摘要(7个国家)。人口覆盖率的完整性至少为98%,有17个国家报告100%。这些数据库通常包括在本国领土内分娩的母亲,不论国籍或居住地(24个国家),而其他数据库只登记居民的出生情况。在20个国家,联系了常规来源,包括出生和死亡证明之间的联系(16个国家)。提供所有16个项目(N = 8)的国家更有可能使用分娩住院的电子病历(100%),而提供15-14个项目(N = 12)的国家则为50%和11%。结论:用于构建欧洲围产期健康指标的数据源在各国之间存在很大差异。使用电子病历与其他来源联系的国家的数据可用性最好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Perinatal Health in Europe: A Comparison of Routine Population Birth Data Sources.

Background: International comparisons of population birth data provide essential benchmarks for evaluating perinatal health policies.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe routine national data sources in Europe by their ability to provide core perinatal health indicators.

Methods: The Euro-Peristat Network collected routine national data on a recommended set of core indicators from 2015 to 2021 using a federated protocol based on a common data model with 16 data items. Data providers completed an online questionnaire to describe the sources used in each country. We classified countries by the number of data items they provided (all 16, 15-14, < 14).

Results: A total of 29 out of the 31 countries that provided data responded to the survey. Routine data sources included birth certificates (15 countries), electronic medical records (EMR) from delivery hospitalisations (16 countries), direct entry by health providers (9 countries), EMR from other care providers (7 countries) and Hospital Discharge Summaries (7 countries). Completeness of population coverage was at least 98%, with 17 countries reporting 100%. These databases most often included mothers giving birth in the national territory, regardless of nationality or place of residence (24 countries), whereas others register births to residents only. In 20 countries, routine sources were linked, including linkage between birth and death certificates (16 countries). Countries providing all 16 items (N = 8) were more likely to use EMRs from delivery hospitalisations (100%) compared to 50% and 11% in countries with 15-14 items (N = 12) and < 14 items (N = 9), respectively. Linkage was also more common in these countries (100%) versus 75% and 56%, respectively. Other data source characteristics did not differ by the ability to provide data on core perinatal indicators.

Conclusions: There are wide differences between countries in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. Countries using EMR linking to other sources had the best data availability.

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
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
84
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology crosses the boundaries between the epidemiologist and the paediatrician, obstetrician or specialist in child health, ensuring that important paediatric and perinatal studies reach those clinicians for whom the results are especially relevant. In addition to original research articles, the Journal also includes commentaries, book reviews and annotations.
×
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