首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Analysis of four studies in a comparative framework reveals: health linkage consent rates on British cohort studies higher than on UK household panel surveys
【24h】

Analysis of four studies in a comparative framework reveals: health linkage consent rates on British cohort studies higher than on UK household panel surveys

机译:在比较框架中对四项研究的分析表明:英国队列研究中的健康联系同意率高于英国家庭面板调查

获取原文
       

摘要

Background A number of cohort studies and longitudinal household panel studies in Great Britain have asked for consent to link survey data to administrative health data. We explore commonalities and differences in the process of collecting consent, achieved consent rates and biases in consent with respect to socio-demographic, socio-economic and health characteristics. We hypothesise that British cohort studies which are rooted within the health sciences achieve higher consent rates than the UK household longitudinal studies which are rooted within the social sciences. By contrast, the lack of a specific health focus in household panel studies means there may be less selectivity in consent, in particular, with respect to health characteristics. Methods Survey designs and protocols for collecting informed consent to health record linkage on two British cohort studies and two UK household panel studies are systematically compared. Multivariate statistical analysis is then performed on information from one cohort and two household panel studies that share a great deal of the data linkage protocol but vary according to study branding, survey design and study population. Results We find that consent is higher in the British cohort studies than in the UK household panel studies, and is higher the more health-focused the study is. There are no systematic patterns of consent bias across the studies and where effects exist within a study or study type they tend to be small. Minority ethnic groups will be underrepresented in record linkage studies on the basis of all three studies. Conclusions Systematic analysis of three studies in a comparative framework suggests that the factors associated with consent are idiosyncratic to the study. Analysis of linked health data is needed to establish whether selectivity in consent means the resulting research databases suffer from any biases that ought to be considered.
机译:背景技术英国的许多队列研究和纵向家庭小组研究均要求同意将调查数据与行政卫生数据相关联。在社会人口统计学,社会经济和健康特征方面,我们探讨了收集同意书,达成同意率和同意偏差过程中的共性和差异。我们假设,扎根于健康科学领域的英国队列研究获得的认可率高于扎根于社会科学领域的英国家庭纵向研究。相比之下,家庭小组研究缺乏对健康的关注,这意味着同意的选择性可能较低,尤其是在健康特征方面。方法系统地比较了两项英国队列研究和两项英国家庭面板研究收集健康记录链接知情同意的调查设计和方案。然后,对来自一项队列研究和两项家庭小组研究的信息进行多变量统计分析,这些研究共享大量的数据链接协议,但会因研究品牌,调查设计和研究人群而异。结果我们发现,在英国队列研究中,同意程度高于在英国家庭面板研究中,并且对健康的关注程度更高。整个研究中没有系统的同意偏见模式,并且在研究或研究类型中存在影响的情况下,这些影响往往很小。在所有三项研究的基础上,记录链接研究中的少数民族人数将不足。结论在比较框架内对三项研究进行系统分析表明,与同意有关的因素对该研究而言是特质的。需要对链接的健康数据进行分析,以确定在同意中是否具有选择性,这意味着所得的研究数据库是否存在应考虑的任何偏见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号