Accuracy of routinely recorded ethnic group information compared with self-reported ethnicity: evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience survey
Accuracy of routinely recorded ethnic group information compared with self-reported ethnicity: evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002882
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Lyratzopoulos, G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Saunders, C. L.;Abel, G. A.;Lyratzopoulos, G.
目的：描述当代国家卫生服务（NHS）医院记录中种族编码与自我报告种族“金标准”的准确性。设计：对横断面调查（2011）的数据进行二次分析。环境：英国所有提供癌症治疗的NHS医院。参与者：58 721名癌症患者的种族信息（国家统计局2001年16组分类）可从自我报告（被认为代表“金标准”）和他们的医院记录中获得。方法：计算医院病历族裔的敏感性和阳性预测值。此外，我们使用逻辑回归模型来探索记录和自我报告种族之间不一致的独立预测因素。结果：总体而言，4.9%（4.7-5.1%）的人在医院病历中错误记录了他们自我报告的种族。记录在案的白种英国人对自我报告的白种英国人的敏感性（97.8%(97.7-98.0%)）和PPV（98.1%(98.0-98.2%)）较高。记录的其他15个民族的种族信息的准确性要低得多，有41.2%（39.7-42.7%）不正确。记录的“混合”种族敏感性低（12-31%），ppv低（1242%）。记录的“印度人”、“中国人”、“加勒比黑人”和“非洲黑人”族群的敏感性（65-80%）和PPV（80-89%）分别处于中等水平。在多变量分析中，属于少数民族是种族信息不一致的唯一独立预测因子。有强有力的证据表明，不同医院之间种族信息的不一致程度有很大差异(p
Objective: To describe the accuracy of ethnicity coding in contemporary National Health Service (NHS) hospital records compared with the `gold standard' of self-reported ethnicity.Design: Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey (2011).Setting: All NHS hospitals in England providing cancer treatment.Participants: 58 721 patients with cancer for whom ethnicity information (Office for National Statistics 2001 16-group classification) was available from self-reports (considered to represent the `gold standard') and their hospital record.Methods: We calculated the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of hospital record ethnicity. Further, we used a logistic regression model to explore independent predictors of discordance between recorded and self-reported ethnicity.Results: Overall, 4.9% (4.7-5.1%) of people had their self-reported ethnic group incorrectly recorded in their hospital records. Recorded White British ethnicity had high sensitivity (97.8% (97.7-98.0%)) and PPV (98.1% (98.0-98.2%)) for self-reported White British ethnicity. Recorded ethnicity information for the 15 other ethnic groups was substantially less accurate with 41.2% (39.7-42.7%) incorrect. Recorded `Mixed' ethnicity had low sensitivity (12-31%) and PPVs (1242%). Recorded `Indian', `Chinese', `Black-Caribbean' and `Black African' ethnic groups had intermediate levels of sensitivity (65-80%) and PPV (80-89%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, belonging to an ethnic minority group was the only independent predictor of discordant ethnicity information. There was strong evidence that the degree of discordance of ethnicity information varied substantially between different hospitals (p