ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Identification of Mood Disorders in Self-Reported Versus Health Administrative Data.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProducing relevant knowledge on the prevalence of mood disorders (MDs) requires a clear identification of people living with the condition. Analyzing this multifaceted disease from the perspective of health administrative data and population-based surveys could contribute to document inconsistencies between these data sources and highlight the strengths and limitations of each methodological approaches.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of MD disease, assess concordance of MD patterns in population-based surveys versus health administrative data, and investigate statistical differences in characteristics between individuals presenting the disease in each data sources.
methodsThis study used the Care Trajectories-Enriched Data (TorSaDE) cohort. The TorSaDE cohort is built by merging five waves of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) with health administrative data of the province of Quebec, Canada. The sample includes individuals who participated in at least one round of CCHS and for whom evidence of use of health services in the year of CCHS completion and the year before were present in health administrative data. The cohort was split into four groups based on the presence and absence of MD in self-reported versus health administrative data. Groups' characteristics were compared using chi-square tests and ANOVA.
resultsThe study cohort was composed of 96,079 individuals, of which 10,418 (10.8%) had MD, regardless of the data sources. Self-reported prevalence of MD was 6.03%, while the prevalence from health administrative data was about 7.79%. Estimates showed a low level of concordance between the two measures, as only 27.4% of people presenting this medical condition were identified in both data sources. Furthermore, individuals identified with MD only in survey data had poorer socioeconomic outcomes but better health outcomes than those from the concordant group (i.e., identified in both data sources). In addition, people presenting MD in health administrative data only had better socioeconomic and health outcomes than those who reported MD diagnosis only in survey data.
conclusionFindings suggest that each measure capture different specific subpopulations. Estimates obtained from each source should thus be contextualized and interpreted with caution.
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.