Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30477507›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Practical utility of general practice data capture and spatial analysis for understanding COPD and asthma.

T Niyonsenga, N T Coffee, P Del Fante, S B Høj, M Daniel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

T NiyonsengaCentre for Research and Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. theo.niyonsenga@canberra.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6723-0316
N T CoffeeCentre for Research and Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
P Del FanteHealthfirst Network, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
S B HøjCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
M DanielCentre for Research and Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute, Australian National University 00000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral practice-based (GP) healthcare data have promise, when systematically collected, to support estimating local rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, variations in burden of disease, risk factors and comorbid conditions, and disease management and quality of care. The use of GP information systems for health improvement has been limited, however, in the scope and quality of data. This study assessed the practical utility of de-identified clinical databases for estimating local rates of COPD and asthma. We compared COPD and asthma rates to national benchmarks, examined health related risk factors and co-morbidities as correlates of COPD and asthma, and assessed spatial patterns in prevalence estimates at the small-area level.

methodsData were extracted from five GP databases in western Adelaide, South Australia, for active patients residing in the region between 2012 and 2014. Prevalence estimates were computed at the statistical area 1 (SA1) spatial unit level using the empirical Bayes estimation approach. Descriptive analyses included summary statistics, spatial indices and mapping of geographic patterns. Bivariate associations were assessed, and disease profiles investigated to ascertain multi-morbidities. Multilevel logistic regression models were fitted, accounting for individual covariates including the number of comorbid conditions to assess the influence of area-level socio-economic status (SES).

resultsFor 33,725 active patients, prevalence estimates were 3.4% for COPD and 10.3% for asthma, 0.8% higher and 0.5% lower for COPD and asthma, respectively, against 2014-15 National Health Survey (NHS) benchmarks. Age-specific comparisons showed discrepancies for COPD in the '64 years or less' and 'age 65 and up' age groups, and for asthma in the '15-25 years' and '75 years and up' age groups. Analyses confirmed associations with individual-level factors, co-morbid conditions, and area-level SES. Geographic aggregation was seen for COPD and asthma, with clustering around GP clinics and health care centres. Spatial patterns were inversely related to area-level SES.

conclusionGP-based data capture and analysis has a clear potential to support research for improved patient outcomes for COPD and asthma via knowledge of geographic variability and its correlates, and how local prevalence estimates differ from NHS benchmarks for vulnerable age-groups.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAsthmaBayes TheoremChildChild, PreschoolComorbidityFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth SurveysHumansInfantLogistic ModelsChronic disease managementCOPD and asthmaGeneral practice capture dataImproved research quality dataSpatial analysis

Identifiers

PMID30477507
PMCPMC6260571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.