Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of health information exchange data with self-report in measuring cancer screening.
Bhattacharyya, Oindrila; Rawl, Susan M; Dickinson, Stephanie L; Haggstrom, David A.
Affiliation
  • Bhattacharyya O; Department of Economics, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
  • Rawl SM; James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Dickinson SL; The William Tierney Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute Inc, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
  • Haggstrom DA; Indiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Comprehensive Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 23(1): 172, 2023 07 25.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37491208
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Efficient measurement of the receipt of cancer screening has been attempted with electronic health records (EHRs), but EHRs are commonly implemented within a single health care setting. However, health information exchange (HIE) includes EHR data from multiple health care systems and settings, thereby providing a more population-based measurement approach. In this study, we set out to understand the value of statewide HIE data in comparison to survey self-report (SR) to measure population-based cancer screening.

METHODS:

A statewide survey was conducted among residents in Indiana who had been seen at an ambulatory or inpatient clinical setting in the past year. Measured cancer screening tests included colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammogram for breast cancer. For each screening test, the self-reported response for receipt of the screening (yes/no) and 'time since last screening' were compared with the corresponding information from patient HIE to evaluate the concordance between the two measures.

RESULTS:

Gwet's AC for HIE and self-report of screening receipt ranged from 0.24-0.73, indicating a fair to substantial concordance. For the time since receipt of last screening test, the Gwet's AC ranged from 0.21-0.90, indicating fair to almost perfect concordance. In comparison with SR data, HIE data provided relatively more additional information about laboratory-based tests FIT (19% HIE alone vs. 4% SR alone) and HPV tests (27% HIE alone vs. 12% SR alone) and less additional information about procedures colonoscopy (8% HIE alone vs. 23% SR alone), Pap test (13% HIE alone vs. 19% SR alone), or mammography (9% HIE alone vs. 10% SR alone).

CONCLUSION:

Studies that use a single data source should consider the type of cancer screening test to choose the optimal data collection method. HIE and self-report both provided unique information in measuring cancer screening, and the most robust measurement approach involves collecting screening information from both HIE and patient self-report.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Papillomavirus Infections / Health Information Exchange / Neoplasms Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Screening_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Journal subject: MEDICINA Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Papillomavirus Infections / Health Information Exchange / Neoplasms Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Screening_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Journal subject: MEDICINA Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: