Bias in the estimation of adult body mass index from general practice records
Bias in the estimation of adult body mass index from general practice records
复制标题
根据一般实践记录估计成人体重指数的偏差
DOI:
10.1093/eurpub/cku163.080
复制
发表时间:
2014
影响因子:
4.4
通讯作者:
Badrick E
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Badrick E
BackgroundData from general practice (GP) records in the UK is routinely used for monitoring patients with chronic conditions. We assessed the suitability of these data for generating hypotheses about trends in adult body mass index (BMI), due to the expanding use of routinely collected data for making inferences about population health.MethodsRetrospective cohort study, using data from GP systems on adults in Salford, UK between 2001 and 2011 (n= 248,917 patients) Readcoded information was available on chronic conditions and all BMI measures.ResultsBMI measures for men and women between 2001-2011 show a relatively flat mean BMI. In women the mean BMI (kg/m2) in 2001 was 28.3 (0.06), rising to 28.6 (0.03) in 2006 then decreasing to 28.0 (0.03) in 2011, the annual frequency of measures increased from 13,895 to 67,554. We investigated the odds of having BMI measured if patients had a chronic condition (CHD, cancer or diabetes), for men in 2001 this was 9.12 (8.59-9.68) this had decreased to 4.32 (4.16-4.48) in 2011. In patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D), n= 14 002 a higher BMI is observed in the years preceding diagnosis which subsequently decreases and becomes relatively stable (number of measures in the year before diagnosis in women was 2271, in the year after 8325). We also observed changes in the frequency of recording BMI around the time the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) was introduced.ConclusionsThe findings from GP records could indicate that the mean BMI of the Salford population is decreasing, which contradicts other sources. The trends over time seem more related to why the measurement was made than to actual population weight for height. In particular, in the pre-QOF era, BMI may have only been recorded due to illness or if the patient’s weight was of concern. In order to avoid biases we advocate capturing detailed metadata about the context of measurement and crafting longitudinal statistical models accordingly, even then the value of the data may be restricted to considering within-individual changes in BMI over time.