Comparison of health information exchange data with self-report in measuring cancer screening.
Cancer screening
Early detection
Electronic medical records
Survey
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 07 2023
25 07 2023
Historique:
received:
23
08
2022
accepted:
30
03
2023
medline:
27
7
2023
pubmed:
26
7
2023
entrez:
25
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Efficient measurement of the receipt of cancer screening has been attempted with electronic health records (EHRs), but EHRs are commonly implemented within a single health care setting. However, health information exchange (HIE) includes EHR data from multiple health care systems and settings, thereby providing a more population-based measurement approach. In this study, we set out to understand the value of statewide HIE data in comparison to survey self-report (SR) to measure population-based cancer screening. A statewide survey was conducted among residents in Indiana who had been seen at an ambulatory or inpatient clinical setting in the past year. Measured cancer screening tests included colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammogram for breast cancer. For each screening test, the self-reported response for receipt of the screening (yes/no) and 'time since last screening' were compared with the corresponding information from patient HIE to evaluate the concordance between the two measures. Gwet's AC for HIE and self-report of screening receipt ranged from 0.24-0.73, indicating a fair to substantial concordance. For the time since receipt of last screening test, the Gwet's AC ranged from 0.21-0.90, indicating fair to almost perfect concordance. In comparison with SR data, HIE data provided relatively more additional information about laboratory-based tests: FIT (19% HIE alone vs. 4% SR alone) and HPV tests (27% HIE alone vs. 12% SR alone) and less additional information about procedures: colonoscopy (8% HIE alone vs. 23% SR alone), Pap test (13% HIE alone vs. 19% SR alone), or mammography (9% HIE alone vs. 10% SR alone). Studies that use a single data source should consider the type of cancer screening test to choose the optimal data collection method. HIE and self-report both provided unique information in measuring cancer screening, and the most robust measurement approach involves collecting screening information from both HIE and patient self-report.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Efficient measurement of the receipt of cancer screening has been attempted with electronic health records (EHRs), but EHRs are commonly implemented within a single health care setting. However, health information exchange (HIE) includes EHR data from multiple health care systems and settings, thereby providing a more population-based measurement approach. In this study, we set out to understand the value of statewide HIE data in comparison to survey self-report (SR) to measure population-based cancer screening.
METHODS
A statewide survey was conducted among residents in Indiana who had been seen at an ambulatory or inpatient clinical setting in the past year. Measured cancer screening tests included colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammogram for breast cancer. For each screening test, the self-reported response for receipt of the screening (yes/no) and 'time since last screening' were compared with the corresponding information from patient HIE to evaluate the concordance between the two measures.
RESULTS
Gwet's AC for HIE and self-report of screening receipt ranged from 0.24-0.73, indicating a fair to substantial concordance. For the time since receipt of last screening test, the Gwet's AC ranged from 0.21-0.90, indicating fair to almost perfect concordance. In comparison with SR data, HIE data provided relatively more additional information about laboratory-based tests: FIT (19% HIE alone vs. 4% SR alone) and HPV tests (27% HIE alone vs. 12% SR alone) and less additional information about procedures: colonoscopy (8% HIE alone vs. 23% SR alone), Pap test (13% HIE alone vs. 19% SR alone), or mammography (9% HIE alone vs. 10% SR alone).
CONCLUSION
Studies that use a single data source should consider the type of cancer screening test to choose the optimal data collection method. HIE and self-report both provided unique information in measuring cancer screening, and the most robust measurement approach involves collecting screening information from both HIE and patient self-report.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37491208
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01907-7
pii: 10.1186/s12874-023-01907-7
pmc: PMC10367403
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
172Subventions
Organisme : National Cancer Institute, USA
ID : P30 CA082709-17S6
Informations de copyright
© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):551-8
pubmed: 2189948
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008 Nov 06;:768-72
pubmed: 18999242
J Med Internet Res. 2005 Mar 14;7(1):e3
pubmed: 15829475
J Rural Health. 2019 Mar;35(2):144-154
pubmed: 30830983
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Nov;17(11):2987-94
pubmed: 18990740
BMC Public Health. 2020 Feb 5;20(1):184
pubmed: 32024488
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2020 Mar 04;2019:903-912
pubmed: 32308887
Stat Med. 1994 Dec 15-30;13(23-24):2465-76
pubmed: 7701147
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):2614-2620
pubmed: 32462567
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Jul;22(4):917-20
pubmed: 25833394
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021 May;17(5):921-929
pubmed: 32800458
Milbank Q. 2018 Mar;96(1):110-143
pubmed: 29504197
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Apr 29;13:61
pubmed: 23627889
Phys Ther. 2021 Sep 1;101(9):
pubmed: 34132806
Global Spine J. 2020 Jun;10(4):499-501
pubmed: 32435572
Am Fam Physician. 2016 Apr 15;93(8):659-67
pubmed: 27175838
Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 Sep-Oct;24(5):1214-20
pubmed: 16162565
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jun;151(2):427-34
pubmed: 25922083
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Apr 7;85(7):566-70
pubmed: 8455203
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 May 18;11:72
pubmed: 21592352
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Sep 1;25(9):1259-1265
pubmed: 29718258
Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 5;9(1):3527
pubmed: 30837593
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Mar;28(3):462-470
pubmed: 30487135