IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring follow-up time in routinely-collected health datasets: Challenges and solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Thayer
  • Arfon Rees
  • Jon Kennedy
  • Huw Collins
  • Dan Harris
  • Julian Halcox
  • Luca Ruschetti
  • Richard Noyce
  • Caroline Brooks

Abstract

A key requirement for longitudinal studies using routinely-collected health data is to be able to measure what individuals are present in the datasets used, and over what time period. Individuals can enter and leave the covered population of administrative datasets for a variety of reasons, including both life events and characteristics of the datasets themselves. An automated, customizable method of determining individuals’ presence was developed for the primary care dataset in Swansea University’s SAIL Databank. The primary care dataset covers only a portion of Wales, with 76% of practices participating. The start and end date of the data varies by practice. Additionally, individuals can change practices or leave Wales. To address these issues, a two step process was developed. First, the period for which each practice had data available was calculated by measuring changes in the rate of events recorded over time. Second, the registration records for each individual were simplified. Anomalies such as short gaps and overlaps were resolved by applying a set of rules. The result of these two analyses was a cleaned set of records indicating start and end dates of available primary care data for each individual. Analysis of GP records showed that 91.0% of events occurred within periods calculated as having available data by the algorithm. 98.4% of those events were observed at the same practice of registration as that computed by the algorithm. A standardized method for solving this common problem has enabled faster development of studies using this data set. Using a rigorous, tested, standardized method of verifying presence in the study population will also positively influence the quality of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Thayer & Arfon Rees & Jon Kennedy & Huw Collins & Dan Harris & Julian Halcox & Luca Ruschetti & Richard Noyce & Caroline Brooks, 2020. "Measuring follow-up time in routinely-collected health datasets: Challenges and solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228545
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228545
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228545&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228545?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Regula S von Allmen & Salome Weiss & Hendrik T Tevaearai & Christoph Kuemmerli & Christian Tinner & Thierry P Carrel & Juerg Schmidli & Florian Dick, 2015. "Completeness of Follow-Up Determines Validity of Study Findings: Results of a Prospective Repeated Measures Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228545. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.