Inconsistencies in self-reported diabetes in a large panel study: the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE).
Diabetes mellitus
Longitudinal study
Panel study
Reliability
Self-report
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:
11 Jan 2024
11 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
30
10
2023
accepted:
22
12
2023
medline:
12
1
2024
pubmed:
12
1
2024
entrez:
11
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The validity of self-reported chronic conditions has been assessed by comparing them with medical records or register data in several studies. However, the reliability of self-reports of chronic diseases has less often been examined. Our aim was to assess the proportion and determinants of inconsistent self-reports of diabetes in a long panel study. SHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe) includes 140,000 persons aged ≥ 50 years from 28 European countries and Israel. We used data from waves 1 to 7 (except wave 3) collected between 2004 and 2017. Diabetes was assessed by self-report. An inconsistent report for diabetes was defined as reporting the condition in one wave, but denying it in at least one later wave. The analysis data set included 13,179 persons who reported diabetes, and answered the question about diabetes in at least one later wave. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to estimate crude and adjusted relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between various exposure variables and inconsistent report of diabetes. The proportion of persons with inconsistent self-reports of diabetes was 33.0% (95% CI: 32.2%-33.8%). Inconsistencies occurred less often in persons taking antidiabetic drugs (RR = 0.53 (0.53-0.56)), persons with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m In SHARE, inconsistent self-report of diabetes is frequent. Consistent reports are more likely for persons whose characteristics make diabetes more salient, like intake of antidiabetic medication, obesity, and poor subjective health. However, lack of attention in answering the questions, and poor wording of the items may also play a role.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The validity of self-reported chronic conditions has been assessed by comparing them with medical records or register data in several studies. However, the reliability of self-reports of chronic diseases has less often been examined. Our aim was to assess the proportion and determinants of inconsistent self-reports of diabetes in a long panel study.
METHODS
METHODS
SHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe) includes 140,000 persons aged ≥ 50 years from 28 European countries and Israel. We used data from waves 1 to 7 (except wave 3) collected between 2004 and 2017. Diabetes was assessed by self-report. An inconsistent report for diabetes was defined as reporting the condition in one wave, but denying it in at least one later wave. The analysis data set included 13,179 persons who reported diabetes, and answered the question about diabetes in at least one later wave. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to estimate crude and adjusted relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between various exposure variables and inconsistent report of diabetes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The proportion of persons with inconsistent self-reports of diabetes was 33.0% (95% CI: 32.2%-33.8%). Inconsistencies occurred less often in persons taking antidiabetic drugs (RR = 0.53 (0.53-0.56)), persons with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In SHARE, inconsistent self-report of diabetes is frequent. Consistent reports are more likely for persons whose characteristics make diabetes more salient, like intake of antidiabetic medication, obesity, and poor subjective health. However, lack of attention in answering the questions, and poor wording of the items may also play a role.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38212700
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02137-7
pii: 10.1186/s12874-023-02137-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Martin LM, Leff M, Calonge N, Garrett C, Nelson DE. Validation of self-reported chronic conditions and health services in a managed care population. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:215–8.
doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00158-0
pubmed: 10722987
Wilhelmson K, Rubenowitz Lundin E, Andersson C, Sundh V, Waern M. Interviews or medical records, which type of data yields the best information on elderly people´s health status? Aging Clin Exp Res. 2006;18:25–33.
doi: 10.1007/BF03324637
pubmed: 16608133
Van den Akker M, Van Steenkiste B, Krutwagen E, Metsemakers JFM. Disease or no disease? Disagreement on diagnoses between self-reports and medical records of adult patients. Eur J Gen Pract. 2015;21:45–51.
doi: 10.3109/13814788.2014.907266
pubmed: 24830475
Dambha-Miller, H et al. Behaviour change, weight loss and remission of type 2 diabetes: a community based prospective cohort study. Diabetic Medicine; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14122
Lean ME, et al. Primary careled weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10120):541–51.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33102-1
pubmed: 29221645
Beckett M, Weinstein M, Goldman N, Yu-Hsuan L. Do health interview subjects yield reliable data on chronic illness among older respondents? Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:315–23.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010208
pubmed: 10670557
Klabunde CN, Reeve BB, Harlan LC, Davis WW, Potosky AL. Do patients consistently report comorbid conditions over time? Results from the prostate cancer outcome study. Med Care. 2005;43:391–400.
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000156851.80900.d1
pubmed: 15778642
Sheik MA, Lund E, Braaten T. Test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes diagnosis in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study: A population-based longitudinal study (n=33,919). SAGE Open Med 2016; 8;4:2050312115622857. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312115622857 . eCollection 2016.
Cigolle CT, Nagel CL, Blaum CS, Liang J, Quinones AR. Inconsistency in the self-report of chronic diseases in panel surveys: developing an adjudication method for the Health and Retirement Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018;73:901–12.
pubmed: 27260670
Quinones AR, Melekin A, Cigolle CT, Nagel CL. Disputes of self-reported chronic disease over time: the role of race, ethnicity, nativity and language of interview. Med Care. 2019;57:625–32.
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001148
pubmed: 31299025
pmcid: 6629430
Rosendahl Jensen HA, Davidsen M, Illemann Christensen A, Ekholm O. Inconsistencies in self-reported health conditions: results of a nationwide panel study. Int J Public Health. 2019;64:1243–6.
doi: 10.1007/s00038-019-01287-0
Börsch-Supan A, Brandt M, Hunkler C, et al. Data Resource Profile: The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:992–1001.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt088
pubmed: 23778574
pmcid: 3780997
SHARE - Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. http://www.share-project.org/home0.html (last access december 30, 2021).
Börsch-Supan, A. (2020). Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 1. Release version: 7.1.0. SHARE-ERIC. Data set. https://doi.org/10.6103/SHARE.w1.710
Börsch-Supan, A. (2020). Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 2. Release version: 7.1.0. SHARE-ERIC. Data set. https://doi.org/10.6103/SHARE.w2.710
Börsch-Supan, A. (2020). Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 4. Release version: 7.1.0. SHARE-ERIC. Data set. https://doi.org/10.6103/SHARE.w4.710
Börsch-Supan, A. (2020). Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 5. Release version: 7.1.0. SHARE-ERIC. Data set. https://doi.org/10.6103/SHARE.w5.710
Börsch-Supan, A. (2020). Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 6. Release version: 7.1.0. SHARE-ERIC. Data set. https://doi.org/10.6103/SHARE.w6.710
Börsch-Supan, A. (2020). Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 7. Release version: 7.1.1. SHARE-ERIC. Data set. https://doi.org/10.6103/SHARE.w7.711
Nooney JG, Kirkman MS, Bullard MK, et al. Identifying optimal survey-based algorithms to distinguish diabetes type among adults with diabetes. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2020;21:100231.
pubmed: 32695611
pmcid: 7365930
Cheng G, Huang C, Deng H, Wang H. Diabetes as a risk factor for dementia and mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Intern Med J. 2012;42:484–91.
doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02758.x
pubmed: 22372522
Zhang J, Chen C, Hua S, et al. An updated meta-analysis of cohort studies: Diabetes and risk of Alzheimer´s disease. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;124:41–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.10.024
pubmed: 28088029
You Y, Lou Z, Chen Y, et al. The prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Diabetol. 2021;58:671–85.
doi: 10.1007/s00592-020-01648-9
pubmed: 33417039
Palta P, Schneider ALC, Biessels GJ, Touradji P, Hill-Briggs F. Magnitude of cognitive dysfunction in adults with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of six cognitive domains and the most frequently reported neuropsychological tests within domains. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014;20:278–91.
doi: 10.1017/S1355617713001483
pubmed: 24555960
pmcid: 4132660
Huerta JM, Tormo MJ, Egea-Caparrós JM, Ortolá-Devesa JB, Navarro C. Accuracy of self-reported diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia in the adult Spanish population. DINO Study findings Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009;62:143–52.
doi: 10.1016/S0300-8932(09)70156-3
pubmed: 19232187
Goto A, Morita A, Goto M, et al. Validity of diabetes self-reports in the Saku Diabetes Study. J Epidemiol. 2013;23:295–300.
doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20120221
pubmed: 23774288
Jackson JM, DeFor TA, Crain AL, et al. Validity of diabetes self-reports in the Women´s Health Initiative. Menopause. 2014;21:861–8.
doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000189
pubmed: 24496083
pmcid: 4278641
Pastorino S, Richards M, Hardy R, et al. Validation of self-reported diagnosis of diabetes in the 1946 British birth cohort. Prim Care Diabetes. 2015;9:397–400.
doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2014.05.003
pubmed: 25037637
pmcid: 4582042
Li HL, Fang J, Zhao LG, et al. Personal characteristics effects on validation of self-reported type 2 diabetes from a cross-sectional survey among Chinese adults. J Epidemiol. 2020;30:516–21.
doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20190178
pubmed: 31656244
pmcid: 7557172
American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(Suppl 1):S14–31.
doi: 10.2337/dc20-S002
Schmermund A, Möhlenkamp S, Stang A, et al. Assessment of clinically silent atherosclerotic disease and established and novel risk factors for predicting myocardial infarction and cardiac death in healthy middle-aged subjects: Rationale and design of the Heinz Nixdorf RECALL Study. Risk factors, evaluation of coronary calcium and lifestyle. Am Heart J. 2002;144:212–8.
doi: 10.1067/mhj.2002.123579
pubmed: 12177636
Rathmann W, Haastert B, Icks A, Löwel H, Meisinger C, Holle R, et al. High prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus in Southern Germany: target populations for efficient screening. The KORA survey 2000. Diabetologia. 2003;46:182–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00125-002-1025-0
pubmed: 12627316
Kowall B, Rathmann W, Stang A, Bongaerts B, Kuss O, Herder C, Roden M, Quante A, Holle R, Huth C, Peters A, Meisinger C. Perceived risk of diabetes seriously underestimates actual diabetes risk: The KORA FF4 Study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0171152.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171152
pubmed: 28141837
pmcid: 5283734