Validation of secondary data sources to identify Parkinson disease against clinical diagnostic criteria.

Parkinson disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder. Its diagnosis relies solely on a clinical examination and is not straightforward because no diagnostic test exists. Large, population-based, prospective cohort studies designed to examine other outcomes that are more common than PD might provide cost-efficient alternatives for studying the disease. However, most cohort studies have not implemented rigorous systematic screening for PD. A majority of epidemiologic studies that utilize population-based prospective designs rely on secondary data sources to identify PD cases. Direct validation of these secondary sources against clinical diagnostic criteria is lacking. The Framingham Heart Study has prospectively screened and evaluated participants for PD based on clinical diagnostic criteria. We assessed the predictive value of secondary sources for PD identification relative to clinical diagnostic criteria in the Framingham Heart Study (2001-2012). We found positive predictive values of 1.0 (95% confidence interval: 0.868, 1.0), 1.0 (95% confidence interval: 0.839, 1.0), and 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.307, 0.694) for PD identified from self-report, use of antiparkinsonian medications, and Medicare claims, respectively. The negative predictive values were all higher than 0.99. Our results highlight the limitations of using only Medicare claims data and suggest that population-based cohorts may be utilized for the study of PD determined via self-report or medication inventories while preserving a high degree of confidence in the validity of PD case identification.

Health insurance and cardiovascular disease risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Compared with those with health insurance, the uninsured receive less care for chronic conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, and experience higher mortality. METHODS: We investigated the relations of health insurance status to the prevalence, treatment, and control of major cardiovascular disease risk factors-hypertension and elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-among Framingham Heart Study (FHS) participants in gender-specific, age-adjusted analyses. Participants who attended the seventh Offspring cohort examination cycle (1998-2001) or the first Third Generation cohort examination cycle (2002-2005) were studied. RESULTS: Among 6098 participants, 3.8% were uninsured at the time of the FHS clinic examination and ages ranged from 19 to 64 years. The prevalence of hypertension and elevated LDL cholesterol was similar for the insured and uninsured; however, the proportion of those who obtained treatment and achieved control of these risk factors was lower among the uninsured. Uninsured men and women were less likely to be treated for hypertension with odds ratios for treatment of 0.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.56) for men and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.12-0.79) for women. Among men, the uninsured were less likely to receive treatment or achieve control of elevated LDL cholesterol than the insured, with odds ratios of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.04-0.38) for treatment and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.05-0.56) for control. CONCLUSION: The treatment and control of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are lower among uninsured adults. Increasing the proportion of insured individuals may be a means to improve the treatment and control of cardiovascular disease risk factors and to reduce health disparities.

Temporal trends in self-reported functional limitations and physical disability among the community-dwelling elderly population: the Framingham heart study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine change in the prevalence of functional limitations and physical disability among the community-dwelling elderly population across 3 decades. METHODS: We studied original participants of the Framingham Heart Study, aged 79 to 88 years, at examination 15 (1977-1979; 177 women, 103 men), examination 20 (1988-1990; 159 women, 98 men) and examination 25 (1997-1999; 174 women, 119 men). Self-reported functional limitation was defined using the Nagi scale, and physical disability was defined using the Rosow-Breslau and Katz scales. RESULTS: Functional limitations declined across examinations from 74.6% to 60.5% to 37.9% (P < .001) among women and from 54.2% to 37.8% to 27.8% (P<.001) among men. Physical disability declined from 74.5% to 48.5% to 34.6% (P < .001) among women and 42.3% to 33.3% to 22.8% (P = .009) among men. Among women, improvements in functional limitations (P = .05) were greater from examination 20 to 25, whereas for physical disability (P=.02), improvements were greater from examination 15 to 20. Improvements in function were constant across the 3 examinations in men. CONCLUSIONS: Among community-dwelling elders, the prevalence of functional limitations and physical disability declined significantly in both women and men from the 1970s to the 1990s. This may in part be due to improvements in technological devices used to maintain independence. Further work is needed to identify the underlining causes of the decline so preventative measures can be established that promote independence for the elderly population.

Recommendations for improving the quality of care through stroke centers and systems: an examination of stroke center identification options: multidisciplinary consensus recommendations from the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification Options of the American Stroke Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The American Stroke Association (ASA) assembled a multidisciplinary group of experts to develop recommendations regarding the potential effectiveness of establishing an identification program for stroke centers and systems. "Identification" refers to the full spectrum of models for assessing and recognizing standards of quality care (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation). A primary consideration is whether stroke center identification might improve patient outcomes. METHODS: In February 2001, ASA, with the support of the Stroke Council's Executive Committee, decided to embark on an evaluation of the potential impact of stroke center identification. HealthPolicy R&D was selected to prepare a comprehensive report. The investigators reported on models outside the area of stroke, ongoing initiatives within the stroke community (such as Operation Stroke), and state and federal activities designed to improve care for stroke patients. The investigators also conducted interviews with thought leaders in the stroke community, representing a diverse sampling of specialties and affiliations. In October 2001, the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification developed its consensus recommendations. This group included recognized experts in neurology, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, neurological surgery, neurointensive care, vascular disease, and stroke program planning. RESULTS: There are a variety of existing identification programs, generally falling within 1 of 4 categories (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation) along a continuum with respect to intensity and scope of review and consumption of resources. Ten programs were evaluated, including Peer Review Organizations, trauma centers, and new efforts by the National Committee on Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to identify providers and disease management programs. The largest body of literature on clinical outcomes associated with identification programs involves trauma centers. Most studies support that trauma centers and systems lead to improved mortality rates and patient outcomes. The Advisory Working Group felt that comparison to the trauma model was most relevant given the need for urgent evaluation and treatment of stroke. The literature in other areas generally supports the positive impact of identification programs, although patient outcomes data have less often been published. In the leadership interviews, participants generally expressed strong support for pursuing some form of voluntary identification program, although concerns were raised that this effort could meet with some resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of stroke centers and stroke systems competencies is in the best interest of stroke patients in the United States, and ASA should support the development and implementation of such processes. The purpose of a stroke center/systems identification program is to increase the capacity for all hospitals to treat stroke patients according to standards of care, recognizing that levels of involvement will vary according to the resources of hospitals and systems.