ArticleEuropean journal of public health2021
Validity of self-reported mammography uptake in the Belgian health interview survey: selection and reporting bias.
Article in European journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of self-reported exam indications for breast cancer screening.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Linking health survey data with health insurance data: methodology, challenges, opportunities and recommendations for public health research. An experience from the HISlink project in Belgium.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe validity of self-reported mammography uptake is often questioned. We assessed the related selection and reporting biases among women aged 50-69 years in the Belgian Health Interview Survey (BHIS) using reimbursement data for mammography stemming from the Belgian Compulsory Health Insurance organizations (BCHI).
methodsIndividual BHIS 2013 data (n = 1040) were linked to BCHI data 2010-13 (BHIS-BCHI sample). Being reimbursed for mammography within the last 2-years was used as the gold standard. Selection bias was assessed by comparing BHIS estimates reimbursement rates in BHIS-BCHI with similar estimates from the Echantillon Permanent/Permanente Steekproef (EPS), a random sample of BCHI data, while reporting bias was investigated by comparing self-reported versus reimbursement information in the BHIS-BCHI. Reporting bias was further explored through measures of agreement and logistic regression.
resultsMammography uptake rates based on self-reported information and reimbursement from the BHIS-BCHI were 75.5% and 69.8%, respectively. In the EPS, it was 64.1%. The validity is significantly affected by both selection bias {relative size = 8.93% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.21-14.64]} and reporting bias [relative size = 8.22% (95% CI: 0.76-15.68)]. Sensitivity was excellent (93.7%), while the specificity was fair (66.4%). The agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.63). Women born in non-EU countries (OR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.54-5.13), with high household income (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60) and those reporting poor perceived health (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.14-1.73) were more likely to inaccurately report their mammography uptake.
conclusionsThe validity of self-reported mammography uptake in women aged 50-69 years is affected by both selection and reporting bias. Both administrative and survey data are complementary when assessing mammography uptake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.