■随机试验后关于健康状况的自我报告问卷可能很耗时,昂贵的,并且可能不可靠。行政数据集可以提供具有成本效益的,更少的偏见信息,但尚不确定在新西兰队列中如何比较行政和自我报告的数据来识别慢性病.这项研究旨在确定记录链接是否可以取代自我报告的问卷,以确定慢性疾病,这是试验随访感兴趣的结果。
■一项随机试验50年随访的参与者被要求填写问卷并同意访问管理数据。糖尿病患者的比例,糖尿病前期,高脂血症,高血压,精神健康障碍,使用每个数据源和评估的数据源之间的一致性计算哮喘.
■参与者年龄49岁(SD=1,n=424,50%为男性)。问卷和管理数据之间的协议是轻微的糖尿病前期(kappa=0.10),高血脂症公平(kappa=0.27),大量的糖尿病(kappa=0.65),和中等其他条件(所有kappa>0.42)。仅行政数据就发现,除高血压和精神健康障碍外,所有结果的病例比问卷多两到三倍。仅问卷就确定了比行政数据多一到两倍的案件。结合所有来源增加了对所有结果的病例检测。
■问卷组合,Pharmaceutical,在这项临床试验的随访中,需要有专家小组审查的实验室数据来确定患有慢性疾病的参与者.
UNASSIGNED: Self-reported questionnaires on health status after randomized trials can be time-consuming, costly, and potentially unreliable. Administrative data sets may provide cost-effective, less biased information, but it is uncertain how administrative and self-reported data compare to identify chronic conditions in a New Zealand cohort. This study aimed to determine whether record linkage could replace self-reported questionnaires to identify chronic conditions that were the outcomes of interest for trial follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: Participants in 50-year follow-up of a randomized trial were asked to complete a questionnaire and to consent to accessing administrative data. The proportion of participants with diabetes, pre-diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, mental health disorders, and asthma was calculated using each data source and agreement between data sources assessed.
UNASSIGNED: Participants were aged 49 years (SD = 1, n = 424, 50% male). Agreement between questionnaire and administrative data was slight for pre-diabetes (kappa = 0.10), fair for hyperlipidaemia (kappa = 0.27), substantial for diabetes (kappa = 0.65), and moderate for other conditions (all kappa >0.42). Administrative data alone identified two to three times more cases than the questionnaire for all outcomes except hypertension and mental health disorders, where the questionnaire alone identified one to two times more cases than administrative data. Combining all sources increased case detection for all outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A combination of questionnaire, pharmaceutical, and laboratory data with expert panel review were required to identify participants with chronic conditions of interest in this follow-up of a clinical trial.