Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34303377›Full record

ArticleEmerging themes in epidemiology2021

Standard multiple imputation of survey data didn't perform better than simple substitution in enhancing an administrative dataset: the example of self-rated health in England.

Frank Popham, Elise Whitley, Oarabile Molaodi, Linsay Gray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging themes in epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Frank PophamMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK. Frank.Popham@glasgow.ac.uk.
Elise WhitleyMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0297-9078
Oarabile MolaodiMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK.
Linsay GrayMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth surveys provide a rich array of information but on relatively small numbers of individuals and evidence suggests that they are becoming less representative as response levels fall. Routinely collected administrative data offer more extensive population coverage but typically comprise fewer health topics. We explore whether data combination and multiple imputation of health variables from survey data is a simple and robust way of generating these variables in the general population.

methodsWe use the UK Integrated Household Survey and the English 2011 population census both of which included self-rated general health. Setting aside the census self-rated health data we multiply imputed self-rated health responses for the census using the survey data and compared these with the actual census results in 576 unique groups defined by age, sex, housing tenure and geographic region.

resultsCompared with original census data across the groups, multiply imputed proportions of bad or very bad self-rated health were not a markedly better fit than those simply derived from the survey proportions.

conclusionWhile multiple imputation may have the potential to augment population data with information from surveys, further testing and refinement is required.

Indexed as

CensusMultiple imputationSurveysValidation

Identifiers

PMID34303377
PMCPMC8310590

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.