Self-Report as an Indicator of Incident Disease
Self-Report as an Indicator of Incident Disease
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.03.017
复制
发表时间：
2010-07-01
影响因子：
5.6
通讯作者：
Vahtera, Jussi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oksanen, Tuula;Kivimaki, Mika;Vahtera, Jussi
目的：流行病学研究使用重复调查的自我报告来确定发病率。然而，这种测量的准确性仍然未知，因为有效性研究通常依赖于流行疾病而不是突发疾病的数据。本研究检验了自我报告在基线和随访条件下检测新发疾病的有效性。方法：我们对34,616名芬兰公共部门雇员进行了前瞻性队列研究。相隔约4年的两次调查的自我报告、医生诊断疾病的数据与作为效度标准的综合国家健康登记册的相应记录进行了比较。结果：有相当程度的错误分类的自我报告作为一个措施的突发疾病。自我报告对流行疾病和偶发疾病的特异性同样高（范围，93%-99%），但自我报告对偶发疾病的敏感性明显低于流行疾病：高血压（55%对86%）、糖尿病（62%对96%）、哮喘（63%对91%）、冠心病（62%对78%）和类风湿关节炎（63%对83%）。结论：本研究表明，自我报告对突发事件的敏感性明显低于对流行疾病的敏感性。对自我报告的偶发慢性疾病的研究结果应谨慎解释。中华流行病学杂志2010；20:547-554。(C) 2010爱思唯尔公司版权所有。
PURPOSE: Epidemiological studies use self-reports from repeated surveys to ascertain incident disease. However, the accuracy of such measurements remains unknown, as validity studies have typically relied on data from prevalent, rather than incident, disease. This study examined the validity of self-reports in the detection of new-onset disease with measurements at baseline and follow-up conditions.METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 34,616 Finnish public-sector employees. Data from self-reported, physician-diagnosed diseases from two surveys approximately 4 years apart were compared with corresponding records in comprehensive national health registers used as the validity criterion.RESULTS: There was a considerable degree of misclassification for self-reports as a measure of incident disease. The specificity of self-reports was equally high for the prevalent and incident diseases (range, 93%-99%), but the sensitivity of self-reports was considerably lower for incident than for prevalent diseases: hypertension (55% vs. 86%), diabetes (62% vs. 96%), asthma (63% vs. 91%), coronary heart disease (62% vs. 78%), and rheumatoid arthritis (63% vs. 83%).CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the sensitivity of self-reports is substantially worse for incident than for prevalent diseases. Results from studies on self-reported incident chronic conditions should be interpreted with caution. Ann Epidemial 2010;20:547-554. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.