英国临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)和相关医院事件统计(HES)中种族记录的完整性、一致性和代表性

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Suhail I Shiekh, Mia Harley, Rebecca E Ghosh, Mark Ashworth, Puja Myles, Helen P Booth, Eleanor L Axson
{"title":"英国临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)和相关医院事件统计(HES)中种族记录的完整性、一致性和代表性","authors":"Suhail I Shiekh,&nbsp;Mia Harley,&nbsp;Rebecca E Ghosh,&nbsp;Mark Ashworth,&nbsp;Puja Myles,&nbsp;Helen P Booth,&nbsp;Eleanor L Axson","doi":"10.1186/s12963-023-00302-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This descriptive study assessed the completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom (UK) Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care databases alone and, for those patients registered with a GP in England, when linked to secondary care data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ethnicity records were assessed for all patients in the May 2021 builds of the CPRD GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases for all UK patients. In analyses of the UK, English data was from combined CPRD-HES, whereas data from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales drew from CPRD only. The agreement of ethnicity records per patient was assessed within each dataset (CPRD GOLD, CPRD Aurum, and HES datasets) and between datasets at the highest level ethnicity categorisation ('Asian', 'black', 'mixed', 'white', 'other'). Representativeness was assessed by comparing the ethnic distributions at the highest-level categorisation of CPRD-HES to those from the Census 2011 across the UK's devolved administrations. Additionally, CPRD-HES was compared to the experimental ethnic distributions for England and Wales from the Office for National Statistics in 2019 (ONS2019) and the English ethnic distribution from May 2021 from NHS Digital's General Practice Extraction Service Data for Pandemic Planning and Research with HES data linkage (GDPPR-HES).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In CPRD-HES, 81.7% of currently registered patients in the UK had ethnicity recorded in primary care. For patients with multiple ethnicity records, mismatched ethnicity within individual primary and secondary care datasets was < 10%. Of English patients with ethnicity recorded in both CPRD and HES, 93.3% of records matched at the highest-level categorisation; however, the level of agreement was markedly lower in the 'mixed' and 'other' ethnic groups. CPRD-HES was less proportionately 'white' compared to the UK Census 2011 (80.3% vs. 87.2%) and experimental ONS2019 data (80.4% vs. 84.3%). CPRD-HES was aligned with the ethnic distribution from GDPPR-HES ('white' 80.4% vs. 80.7%); however, with a smaller proportion classified as 'other' (1.1% vs. 2.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CPRD-HES has suitable representation of all ethnic categories with some overrepresentation of minority ethnic groups and a smaller proportion classified as 'other' compared to the UK general population from other data sources. CPRD-HES data is useful for studying health risks and outcomes in typically underrepresented groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10013294/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).\",\"authors\":\"Suhail I Shiekh,&nbsp;Mia Harley,&nbsp;Rebecca E Ghosh,&nbsp;Mark Ashworth,&nbsp;Puja Myles,&nbsp;Helen P Booth,&nbsp;Eleanor L Axson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12963-023-00302-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This descriptive study assessed the completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom (UK) Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care databases alone and, for those patients registered with a GP in England, when linked to secondary care data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ethnicity records were assessed for all patients in the May 2021 builds of the CPRD GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases for all UK patients. In analyses of the UK, English data was from combined CPRD-HES, whereas data from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales drew from CPRD only. The agreement of ethnicity records per patient was assessed within each dataset (CPRD GOLD, CPRD Aurum, and HES datasets) and between datasets at the highest level ethnicity categorisation ('Asian', 'black', 'mixed', 'white', 'other'). Representativeness was assessed by comparing the ethnic distributions at the highest-level categorisation of CPRD-HES to those from the Census 2011 across the UK's devolved administrations. Additionally, CPRD-HES was compared to the experimental ethnic distributions for England and Wales from the Office for National Statistics in 2019 (ONS2019) and the English ethnic distribution from May 2021 from NHS Digital's General Practice Extraction Service Data for Pandemic Planning and Research with HES data linkage (GDPPR-HES).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In CPRD-HES, 81.7% of currently registered patients in the UK had ethnicity recorded in primary care. For patients with multiple ethnicity records, mismatched ethnicity within individual primary and secondary care datasets was < 10%. Of English patients with ethnicity recorded in both CPRD and HES, 93.3% of records matched at the highest-level categorisation; however, the level of agreement was markedly lower in the 'mixed' and 'other' ethnic groups. CPRD-HES was less proportionately 'white' compared to the UK Census 2011 (80.3% vs. 87.2%) and experimental ONS2019 data (80.4% vs. 84.3%). CPRD-HES was aligned with the ethnic distribution from GDPPR-HES ('white' 80.4% vs. 80.7%); however, with a smaller proportion classified as 'other' (1.1% vs. 2.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CPRD-HES has suitable representation of all ethnic categories with some overrepresentation of minority ethnic groups and a smaller proportion classified as 'other' compared to the UK general population from other data sources. CPRD-HES data is useful for studying health risks and outcomes in typically underrepresented groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10013294/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-023-00302-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-023-00302-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:本描述性研究评估了英国临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)初级保健数据库中种族记录的完整性、一致性和代表性,并对那些在英国全科医生注册的患者,与医院事件统计(HES)的二级保健数据相关联。方法:在2021年5月为所有英国患者建立的CPRD GOLD和CPRD Aurum数据库中评估所有患者的种族记录。在对英国的分析中,英格兰的数据来自CPRD- hes的组合,而北爱尔兰、苏格兰和威尔士的数据仅来自CPRD。在每个数据集(CPRD GOLD、CPRD Aurum和HES数据集)和最高级别种族分类(“亚洲”、“黑人”、“混合”、“白人”、“其他”)的数据集中评估每位患者种族记录的一致性。代表性是通过比较2011年英国各地方政府人口普查中最高等级的cpr - hes分类的种族分布来评估的。此外,将CPRD-HES与2019年国家统计局(ONS2019)的英格兰和威尔士的实验种族分布以及2021年5月的英国种族分布进行了比较,这些分布来自NHS Digital的具有HES数据链接的大流行计划和研究的一般实践提取服务数据(gdpr -HES)。结果:在cpr - hes中,英国81.7%的当前登记患者在初级保健中有种族记录。结论:与来自其他数据源的英国一般人群相比,CPRD-HES具有所有种族类别的适当代表性,少数民族群体的代表性过高,分类为“其他”的比例较小。cpr - hes数据有助于研究代表性不足群体的健康风险和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

Completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

Completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

Completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

Background: This descriptive study assessed the completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom (UK) Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care databases alone and, for those patients registered with a GP in England, when linked to secondary care data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

Methods: Ethnicity records were assessed for all patients in the May 2021 builds of the CPRD GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases for all UK patients. In analyses of the UK, English data was from combined CPRD-HES, whereas data from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales drew from CPRD only. The agreement of ethnicity records per patient was assessed within each dataset (CPRD GOLD, CPRD Aurum, and HES datasets) and between datasets at the highest level ethnicity categorisation ('Asian', 'black', 'mixed', 'white', 'other'). Representativeness was assessed by comparing the ethnic distributions at the highest-level categorisation of CPRD-HES to those from the Census 2011 across the UK's devolved administrations. Additionally, CPRD-HES was compared to the experimental ethnic distributions for England and Wales from the Office for National Statistics in 2019 (ONS2019) and the English ethnic distribution from May 2021 from NHS Digital's General Practice Extraction Service Data for Pandemic Planning and Research with HES data linkage (GDPPR-HES).

Results: In CPRD-HES, 81.7% of currently registered patients in the UK had ethnicity recorded in primary care. For patients with multiple ethnicity records, mismatched ethnicity within individual primary and secondary care datasets was < 10%. Of English patients with ethnicity recorded in both CPRD and HES, 93.3% of records matched at the highest-level categorisation; however, the level of agreement was markedly lower in the 'mixed' and 'other' ethnic groups. CPRD-HES was less proportionately 'white' compared to the UK Census 2011 (80.3% vs. 87.2%) and experimental ONS2019 data (80.4% vs. 84.3%). CPRD-HES was aligned with the ethnic distribution from GDPPR-HES ('white' 80.4% vs. 80.7%); however, with a smaller proportion classified as 'other' (1.1% vs. 2.8%).

Conclusions: CPRD-HES has suitable representation of all ethnic categories with some overrepresentation of minority ethnic groups and a smaller proportion classified as 'other' compared to the UK general population from other data sources. CPRD-HES data is useful for studying health risks and outcomes in typically underrepresented groups.

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
Population Health Metrics
Population Health Metrics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
×
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