Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38678174›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Ascertaining the Francophone population in Ontario: validating the language variable in health data.

Ricardo Batista, Amy T Hsu, Louise Bouchard, Michael Reaume, Emily Rhodes, Ewa Sucha, Eva Guerin, Denis Prud'homme, Douglas G Manuel, Peter Tanuseputro

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. 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. 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

10 authors.

Ricardo BatistaInstitut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, ON, Canada. rbatista@ohri.ca.
Amy T HsuICES uOttawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Louise BouchardInstitut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Michael ReaumeUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Emily RhodesClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ewa SuchaICES uOttawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Eva GuerinInstitut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Denis Prud'hommeInstitut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Douglas G ManuelICES uOttawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Peter TanuseputroICES uOttawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLanguage barriers can impact health care and outcomes. Valid and reliable language data is central to studying health inequalities in linguistic minorities. In Canada, language variables are available in administrative health databases; however, the validity of these variables has not been studied. This study assessed concordance between language variables from administrative health databases and language variables from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to identify Francophones in Ontario.

methodsAn Ontario combined sample of CCHS cycles from 2000 to 2012 (from participants who consented to link their data) was individually linked to three administrative databases (home care, long-term care [LTC], and mental health admissions). In total, 27,111 respondents had at least one encounter in one of the three databases. Language spoken at home (LOSH) and first official language spoken (FOLS) from CCHS were used as reference standards to assess their concordance with the language variables in administrative health databases, using the Cohen kappa, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV).

resultsLanguage variables from home care and LTC databases had the highest agreement with LOSH (kappa = 0.76 [95%CI, 0.735-0.793] and 0.75 [95%CI, 0.70-0.80], respectively) and FOLS (kappa = 0.66 for both). Sensitivity was higher with LOSH as the reference standard (75.5% [95%CI, 71.6-79.0] and 74.2% [95%CI, 67.3-80.1] for home care and LTC, respectively). With FOLS as the reference standard, the language variables in both data sources had modest sensitivity (53.1% [95%CI, 49.8-56.4] and 54.1% [95%CI, 48.3-59.7] in home care and LTC, respectively) but very high specificity (99.8% [95%CI, 99.7-99.9] and 99.6% [95%CI, 99.4-99.8]) and predictive values. The language variable from mental health admissions had poor agreement with all language variables in the CCHS.

conclusionsLanguage variables in home care and LTC health databases were most consistent with the language often spoken at home. Studies using language variables from administrative data can use the sensitivity and specificity reported from this study to gauge the level of mis-ascertainment error and the resulting bias.

Indexed as

LanguageAdultAgedCommunication BarriersDatabases, FactualFemaleHealth SurveysHome Care ServicesHumansLong-Term CareMaleMiddle AgedOntarioReproducibility of ResultsAdministrative health dataCase ascertainmentFrancophonesLinguistic variablesValidity

Identifiers

PMID38678174
PMCPMC11055282

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.