Skip header and navigation

Refine By

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Accuracy of Canadian health administrative databases in identifying patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a validation study using the medical records of rheumatologists.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature114676
Source
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Oct;65(10):1582-91
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-2013
Author
Jessica Widdifield
Sasha Bernatsky
J Michael Paterson
Karen Tu
Ryan Ng
J Carter Thorne
Janet E Pope
Claire Bombardier
Author Affiliation
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Source
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Oct;65(10):1582-91
Date
Oct-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Algorithms
Arthritis, Rheumatoid - diagnosis - epidemiology
Data Mining - statistics & numerical data
Databases, Factual - statistics & numerical data
Drug Prescriptions - statistics & numerical data
Fees and Charges - statistics & numerical data
Female
Hospitalization - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Medical Records Systems, Computerized - statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Ontario - epidemiology
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Rheumatology - statistics & numerical data
Single-Payer System - statistics & numerical data
Abstract
Health administrative data can be a valuable tool for disease surveillance and research. Few studies have rigorously evaluated the accuracy of administrative databases for identifying rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Our aim was to validate administrative data algorithms to identify RA patients in Ontario, Canada.
We performed a retrospective review of a random sample of 450 patients from 18 rheumatology clinics. Using rheumatologist-reported diagnosis as the reference standard, we tested and validated different combinations of physician billing, hospitalization, and pharmacy data.
One hundred forty-nine rheumatology patients were classified as having RA and 301 were classified as not having RA based on our reference standard definition (study RA prevalence 33%). Overall, algorithms that included physician billings had excellent sensitivity (range 94-100%). Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were modest to excellent and increased when algorithms included multiple physician claims or specialist claims. The addition of RA medications did not significantly improve algorithm performance. The algorithm of "(1 hospitalization RA code ever) OR (3 physician RA diagnosis codes [claims] with =1 by a specialist in a 2-year period)" had a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 85%, PPV of 76%, and negative predictive value of 98%. Most RA patients (84%) had an RA diagnosis code present in the administrative data within ±1 year of a rheumatologist's documented diagnosis date.
We demonstrated that administrative data can be used to identify RA patients with a high degree of accuracy. RA diagnosis date and disease duration are fairly well estimated from administrative data in jurisdictions of universal health care insurance.
PubMed ID
23592598 View in PubMed
Less detail

An international comparison of cancer survival: metropolitan Toronto, Ontario, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature196369
Source
Am J Public Health. 2000 Dec;90(12):1866-72
Publication Type
Article
Date
Dec-2000
Author
K M Gorey
E J Holowaty
G. Fehringer
E. Laukkanen
N L Richter
C M Meyer
Author Affiliation
School of Social Work, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. gorey@uwindsor.ca
Source
Am J Public Health. 2000 Dec;90(12):1866-72
Date
Dec-2000
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms - mortality - therapy
Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)
Female
Hawaii - epidemiology
Health Benefit Plans, Employee - statistics & numerical data
Health Services Research
Humans
Income - statistics & numerical data
Insurance Coverage - statistics & numerical data
Insurance, Health - classification - statistics & numerical data
Male
Middle Aged
National Health Programs - statistics & numerical data
Ontario - epidemiology
Prostatic Neoplasms - mortality - therapy
Quality of Health Care
Single-Payer System - statistics & numerical data
Socioeconomic Factors
Survival Analysis
Universal Coverage - statistics & numerical data
Urban Health - statistics & numerical data
Abstract
Comparisons of cancer survival in Canadian and US metropolitan areas have shown consistent Canadian advantages. This study tests a health insurance hypothesis by comparing cancer survival in Toronto, Ontario, and Honolulu, Hawaii.
Ontario and Hawaii registries provided a total of 9190 and 2895 cancer cases (breast and prostate, 1986-1990, followed until 1996). Socioeconomic data for each person's residence at the time of diagnosis were taken from population censuses.
Socioeconomic status and cancer survival were directly associated in the US cohort, but not in the Canadian cohort. Compared with similar patients in Honolulu, residents of low-income areas in Toronto experienced 5-year survival advantages for breast and prostate cancer. In support of the health insurance hypothesis, between-country differences were smaller than those observed with other state samples and the Canadian advantage was larger among younger women.
Hawaii seems to provide better cancer care than many other states, but patients in Toronto still enjoy a significant survival advantage. Although Hawaii's employer-mandated health insurance coverage seems an effective step toward providing equitable health care, even better care could be expected with a universally accessible, single-payer system.
Notes
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Apr;123(4):736-513953551
Cites: Milbank Q. 1999;77(3):401-710526551
Cites: JAMA. 1991 Jan 16;265(3):374-91984537
Cites: J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991 Mar;45(1):35-422045742
Cites: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991 May;18 Suppl 1:S135-411873551
Cites: MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. 1991 Dec;40(4):1-231779955
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1992 Jan 1;135(1):85-951736664
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 1992 Jan;34(1):33-411738854
Cites: Med Care. 1992 Apr;30(4):320-81556880
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1992 May;82(5):703-101566949
Cites: JAMA. 1993 May 19;269(19):2538-438487419
Cites: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Jun 16;85(12):979-878496983
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1993 Jul 29;329(5):326-318321261
Cites: J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1993;4(3):194-2028353211
Cites: JAMA. 1994 Aug 17;272(7):530-48046807
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Aug;47(8):903-97730894
Cites: Int J Health Serv. 1995;25(3):377-927591371
Cites: Br J Cancer. 1996 Mar;73(5):680-68605107
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Aug;49(8):843-78699202
Cites: J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1996 May;7(2):112-218935386
Cites: Ann Surg Oncol. 1997 Jan;4(1):80-78985521
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 1997 Jan-Feb;16(1):71-869018945
Cites: Ann Surg Oncol. 1997 Mar;4(2):111-89084846
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Jun 15;145(12):1100-59199539
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Jul 1;146(1):48-639215223
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jul;15(7):2644-519215836
Cites: J Eval Clin Pract. 1997 Feb;3(1):23-579238607
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1997 Jul;87(7):1156-639240106
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1997 Jul;87(7):1164-79240107
Cites: Cancer Causes Control. 1997 Jul;8(4):637-489242481
Cites: Cancer. 1997 Aug 15;80(4):753-639264360
Cites: Epidemiology. 1997 Nov;8(6):658-659345666
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Nov;50(11):1289-969393385
Cites: Int J Epidemiol. 1997 Dec;26(6):1151-89447393
Cites: Med Care. 1998 Mar;36(3):257-709520952
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1998 Apr;88(4):586-99550999
Cites: Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Apr;52(4):271-89578339
Cites: Can J Public Health. 1998 Mar-Apr;89(2):102-49583250
Cites: JAMA. 1998 Jun 10;279(22):1801-79628711
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Sep 1;148(5):475-869737560
Cites: Dis Colon Rectum. 1998 Sep;41(9):1097-1069749492
Cites: Am J Prev Med. 1998 Oct;15(3):198-2059791637
Cites: Urology. 1999 Jan;53(1):131-89886602
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 1999 Mar 16;130(6):525-3010075621
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 1999 Jul;17(7):2244-5510561282
Cites: Health Place. 1999 Jun;5(2):157-7110670997
Cites: J Public Health Med. 2000 Sep;22(3):343-811077908
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1976 Feb;103(2):226-351251836
Cites: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1984 Dec;73(6):1259-656595437
Cites: Semin Oncol. 1999 Feb;26(1 Suppl 1):40-510071972
Cites: Urology. 1999 Mar;53(3):516-2210096377
Cites: Urology. 1999 Jun;53(6):1194-910367851
Cites: Med Care. 1999 Jun;37(6 Suppl):JS264-7810409013
Cites: Cancer. 1999 Sep 1;86(5):826-3510463982
Cites: Cancer Causes Control. 1999 Aug;10(4):245-5110482482
Cites: Ear Nose Throat J. 1999 Aug;78(8):578, 581-410485151
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1988 Mar 10;318(10):612-72830514
PubMed ID
11111258 View in PubMed
Less detail