CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Accuracy of routinely recorded ethnic group information compared with self-reported ethnicity: Evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience survey
Authors
GA Abel
F Ahmed
+3 more
A El Turabi
G Lyratzopoulos
CL Saunders
Publication date
7 February 2019
Publisher
'BMJ'
Doi
Cite
Abstract
This is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recordData sharing statement No additional data are available.Objective: To describe the accuracy of ethnicity coding in contemporary National Health Service (NHS) hospital records compared with the 'gold standard' of self-reported ethnicity. Design: Secondary analysis of data from a crosssectional survey (2011). Setting: All NHS hospitals in England providing cancer treatment. Participants: 58 721 patients with cancer for whom ethnicity information (Office for National Statistics 2001 16-group classification) was available from self-reports (considered to represent the 'gold standard') and their hospital record. Methods: We calculated the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of hospital record ethnicity. Further, we used a logistic regression model to explore independent predictors of discordance between recorded and self-reported ethnicity. Results: Overall, 4.9% (4.7-5.1%) of people had their self-reported ethnic group incorrectly recorded in their hospital records. Recorded White British ethnicity had high sensitivity (97.8% (97.7-98.0%)) and PPV (98.1% (98.0-98.2%)) for self-reported White British ethnicity. Recorded ethnicity information for the 15 other ethnic groups was substantially less accurate with 41.2% (39.7-42.7%) incorrect. Recorded 'Mixed' ethnicity had low sensitivity (12-31%) and PPVs (12- 42%). Recorded 'Indian', 'Chinese', 'Black-Caribbean' and 'Black African' ethnic groups had intermediate levels of sensitivity (65-80%) and PPV (80-89%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, belonging to an ethnic minority group was the only independent predictor of discordant ethnicity information. There was strong evidence that the degree of discordance of ethnicity information varied substantially between different hospitals (p<0.0001). Discussion: Current levels of accuracy of ethnicity information in NHS hospital records support valid profiling of White/non-White ethnic differences. However, profiling of ethnic differences in process or outcome measures for specific minority groups may contain a substantial and variable degree of misclassification error. These considerations should be taken into account when interpreting ethnic variation audits based on routine data and inform initiatives aimed at improving the accuracy of ethnicity information in hospital records. Copyright © 2013 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Supporting member
Open Research Exeter
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:ore.exeter.ac.uk:10871/358...
Last time updated on 10/02/2019