The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to collect and synthesize evidence regarding data quality problems encountered when working with variables related to social determinants of health (SDoH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on social determinants research and data quality and then iteratively identified themes in the literature using a content analysis process. RESULTS: The most commonly represented quality issue associated with SDoH data is plausibility (n = 31, 41%). Factors related to race and ethnicity have the largest body of literature (n = 40, 53%). The first theme, noted in 62% (n = 47) of articles, is that bias or validity issues often result from data quality problems. The most frequently identified validity issue is misclassification bias (n = 23, 30%). The second theme is that many of the articles suggest methods for mitigating the issues resulting from poor social determinants data quality. We grouped these into 5 suggestions: avoid complete case analysis, impute data, rely on multiple sources, use validated software tools, and select addresses thoughtfully. DISCUSSION: The type of data quality problem varies depending on the variable, and each problem is associated with particular forms of analytical error. Problems encountered with the quality of SDoH data are rarely distributed randomly. Data from Hispanic patients are more prone to issues with plausibility and misclassification than data from other racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Consideration of data quality and evidence-based quality improvement methods may help prevent bias and improve the validity of research conducted with SDoH data.

Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I2=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.