人群结直肠癌筛查估计值:比较加利福尼亚州的自我报告和电子健康记录数据。

Latha P Palaniappan, Annette E Maxwell, Catherine M Crespi, Eric C Wong, Jessica Shin, Elsie J Wang
{"title":"人群结直肠癌筛查估计值:比较加利福尼亚州的自我报告和电子健康记录数据。","authors":"Latha P Palaniappan, Annette E Maxwell, Catherine M Crespi, Eric C Wong, Jessica Shin, Elsie J Wang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>INTRODUCTION: Population-based surveys are used to assess colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but may be subject to self-report biases. Clinical data from electronic health records (EHR) are another data source for assessing screening rates and self-report bias; however, use of EHR data for population research is relatively new. We sought to compare CRC screening rates from a self-report survey, the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), to EHR data from Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), a multi-specialty healthcare organization serving three counties in California. METHODS: Ever- and up-to-date CRC screening rates were compared between CHIS respondents (N=18,748) and PAMF patients (N=26,283). Both samples were limited to English proficient subjects aged 51-75 with health insurance and a physician visit in the past two years. PAMF rates were age-sex standardized to the CHIS population. Analyses were stratified by racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: EHR data included PAMF internally completed tests (84%), and patient-reported externally completed tests which were either confirmed (7%) or unconfirmed (9%) by a physician. When excluding unconfirmed tests, PAMF screening rates were 6-14 percentage points lower than CHIS rates, for both ever- and up-to-date CRC screening among Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, Filipino and Japanese subjects. When including unconfirmed tests, differences in screening rates between the two data sets were minimal. CONCLUSION: Comparability of CRC screening rates from survey data and clinic-based EHR data depends on whether or not unconfirmed patient-reported tests in EHR are included. This indicates a need for validated methods of calculating CRC screening rates in EHR data.</p>","PeriodicalId":87998,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cancer prevention","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157148/pdf/nihms256354.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Population Colorectal Cancer Screening Estimates: Comparing Self-Report to Electronic Health Record Data in California.\",\"authors\":\"Latha P Palaniappan, Annette E Maxwell, Catherine M Crespi, Eric C Wong, Jessica Shin, Elsie J Wang\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>INTRODUCTION: Population-based surveys are used to assess colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but may be subject to self-report biases. Clinical data from electronic health records (EHR) are another data source for assessing screening rates and self-report bias; however, use of EHR data for population research is relatively new. We sought to compare CRC screening rates from a self-report survey, the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), to EHR data from Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), a multi-specialty healthcare organization serving three counties in California. METHODS: Ever- and up-to-date CRC screening rates were compared between CHIS respondents (N=18,748) and PAMF patients (N=26,283). Both samples were limited to English proficient subjects aged 51-75 with health insurance and a physician visit in the past two years. PAMF rates were age-sex standardized to the CHIS population. Analyses were stratified by racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: EHR data included PAMF internally completed tests (84%), and patient-reported externally completed tests which were either confirmed (7%) or unconfirmed (9%) by a physician. When excluding unconfirmed tests, PAMF screening rates were 6-14 percentage points lower than CHIS rates, for both ever- and up-to-date CRC screening among Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, Filipino and Japanese subjects. When including unconfirmed tests, differences in screening rates between the two data sets were minimal. CONCLUSION: Comparability of CRC screening rates from survey data and clinic-based EHR data depends on whether or not unconfirmed patient-reported tests in EHR are included. This indicates a need for validated methods of calculating CRC screening rates in EHR data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of cancer prevention\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157148/pdf/nihms256354.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of cancer prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cancer prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

简介:基于人群的调查用于评估结直肠癌(CRC)筛查率,但可能会受到自我报告偏差的影响。来自电子健康记录(EHR)的临床数据是评估筛查率和自我报告偏差的另一种数据来源;然而,将 EHR 数据用于人口研究还相对较新。我们试图将 2007 年加州健康访谈调查 (CHIS) 中自我报告的 CRC 筛查率与帕洛阿尔托医疗基金会 (PAMF) 的电子病历数据进行比较,帕洛阿尔托医疗基金会是一家服务于加州三个县的多专科医疗机构。 方法:比较了 CHIS 受访者(18748 人)和 PAMF 患者(26283 人)的曾经和最新的 CRC 筛查率。两个样本都仅限于 51-75 岁、有健康保险且在过去两年内就诊过的英语熟练受试者。PAMF 率根据 CHIS 人口的年龄和性别进行了标准化。分析按种族/人种分层。 结果:电子病历数据包括内部完成的 PAMF 检验(84%)和患者报告的外部完成的检验,这些检验要么得到了医生的确认(7%),要么未经确认(9%)。在非西班牙裔白人、黑人、西班牙裔/拉丁美洲人、中国人、菲律宾人和日本人中,如果不包括未经确认的检测,PAMF 的筛查率比 CHIS 的曾经和最新 CRC 筛查率低 6-14 个百分点。如果将未经证实的检查包括在内,两个数据集之间的筛查率差异很小。 结论:调查数据和基于诊所的电子病历数据得出的 CRC 筛查率的可比性取决于电子病历中是否包含患者报告的未经证实的检查。这表明,在计算 EHR 数据中的 CRC 筛查率时,需要采用经过验证的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Population Colorectal Cancer Screening Estimates: Comparing Self-Report to Electronic Health Record Data in California.

INTRODUCTION: Population-based surveys are used to assess colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but may be subject to self-report biases. Clinical data from electronic health records (EHR) are another data source for assessing screening rates and self-report bias; however, use of EHR data for population research is relatively new. We sought to compare CRC screening rates from a self-report survey, the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), to EHR data from Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), a multi-specialty healthcare organization serving three counties in California. METHODS: Ever- and up-to-date CRC screening rates were compared between CHIS respondents (N=18,748) and PAMF patients (N=26,283). Both samples were limited to English proficient subjects aged 51-75 with health insurance and a physician visit in the past two years. PAMF rates were age-sex standardized to the CHIS population. Analyses were stratified by racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: EHR data included PAMF internally completed tests (84%), and patient-reported externally completed tests which were either confirmed (7%) or unconfirmed (9%) by a physician. When excluding unconfirmed tests, PAMF screening rates were 6-14 percentage points lower than CHIS rates, for both ever- and up-to-date CRC screening among Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, Filipino and Japanese subjects. When including unconfirmed tests, differences in screening rates between the two data sets were minimal. CONCLUSION: Comparability of CRC screening rates from survey data and clinic-based EHR data depends on whether or not unconfirmed patient-reported tests in EHR are included. This indicates a need for validated methods of calculating CRC screening rates in EHR data.

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