Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292534›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2020

Comparing health insurance data and health interview survey data for ascertaining chronic disease prevalence in Belgium.

Finaba Berete, Stefaan Demarest, Rana Charafeddine, Olivier Bruyère, Johan Van der Heyden

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Finaba BereteSD Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Juliette Wytsmanstraat, 14 1050, Brussels, Belgium. Finaba.berete@sciensano.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7879-5005
Stefaan DemarestSD Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Juliette Wytsmanstraat, 14 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
Rana CharafeddineSD Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Juliette Wytsmanstraat, 14 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
Olivier BruyèreWHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health aspects of musculoskeletal health and ageing, Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liege, Liège, Belgium.
Johan Van der HeydenSD Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Juliette Wytsmanstraat, 14 1050, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth administrative data were increasingly used for chronic diseases (CDs) surveillance purposes. This cross sectional study explored the agreement between Belgian compulsory health insurance (BCHI) data and Belgian health interview survey (BHIS) data for asserting CDs.

methodsIndividual BHIS 2013 data were linked with BCHI data using the unique national register number. The study population included all participants of the BHIS 2013 aged 15 years and older. Linkage was possible for 93% of BHIS-participants, resulting in a study sample of 8474 individuals. For seven CDs disease status was available both through self-reported information from the BHIS and algorithms based on ATC-codes of disease-specific medication, developed on demand of the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). CD prevalence rates from both data sources were compared. Agreement was measured using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) assuming BHIS data as gold standard. Kappa statistic was also calculated. Participants' sociodemographic and health status characteristics associated with agreement were tested using logistic regression for each CD.

resultsPrevalence from BCHI data was significantly higher for CVDs but significantly lower for COPD and asthma. No significant difference was found between the two data sources for the remaining CDs. Sensitivity was 83% for CVDs, 78% for diabetes and ranged from 27 to 67% for the other CDs. Specificity was excellent for all CDs (above 98%) except for CVDs. The highest PPV was found for Parkinson's disease (83%) and ranged from 41 to 75% for the remaining CDs. Irrespective of the CDs, the NPV was excellent. Kappa statistic was good for diabetes, CVDs, Parkinson's disease and thyroid disorders, moderate for epilepsy and fair for COPD and asthma. Agreement between BHIS and BCHI data is affected by individual sociodemographic characteristics and health status, although these effects varied across CDs.

conclusionsNHIDI's CDs case definitions are an acceptable alternative to identify cases of diabetes, CVDs, Parkinson's disease and thyroid disorders but yield in a significant underestimated number of patients suffering from asthma and COPD. Further research is needed to refine the definitions of CDs from administrative data.

Indexed as

Chronic diseasesChronic diseases ascertainmentData linkageHealth administrative dataHEALTH insurance dataValidity

Identifiers

PMID33292534
PMCPMC7672883

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.