Validation of a case definition for depression in administrative data against primary chart data as a reference standard

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDoktorchik, Chelsea
dc.contributor.authorPatten, Scott
dc.contributor.authorEastwood, Cathy
dc.contributor.authorPeng, Mingkai
dc.contributor.authorChen, Guanmin
dc.contributor.authorBeck, Cynthia A
dc.contributor.authorJetté, Nathalie
dc.contributor.authorWilliamson, Tyler
dc.contributor.authorQuan, Hude
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-14T06:34:28Z
dc.date.available2019-01-14T06:34:28Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-07
dc.date.updated2019-01-14T06:34:27Z
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Because the collection of mental health information through interviews is expensive and time consuming, interest in using population-based administrative health data to conduct research on depression has increased. However, there is concern that misclassification of disease diagnosis in the underlying data might bias the results. Our objective was to determine the validity of International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 administrative health data case definitions for depression using review of family physician (FP) charts as the reference standard. Methods Trained chart reviewers reviewed 3362 randomly selected charts from years 2001 and 2004 at 64 FP clinics in Alberta (AB) and British Columbia (BC), Canada. Depression was defined as presence of either: 1) documentation of major depressive episode, or 2) documentation of specific antidepressant medication prescription plus recorded depressed mood. The charts were linked to administrative data (hospital discharge abstracts and physician claims data) using personal health numbers. Validity indices were estimated for six administrative data definitions of depression using three years of administrative data. Results Depression prevalence by chart review was 15.9–19.2% depending on year, region, and province. An ICD administrative data definition of ‘2 depression claims with depression ICD codes within a one-year window OR 1 discharge abstract data (DAD) depression diagnosis’ had the highest overall validity, with estimates being 61.4% for sensitivity, 94.3% for specificity, 69.7% for positive predictive value, and 92.0% for negative predictive value. Stratification of the validity parameters for this case definition showed that sensitivity was fairly consistent across groups, however the positive predictive value was significantly higher in 2004 data compared to 2001 data (78.8 and 59.6%, respectively), and in AB data compared to BC data (79.8 and 61.7%, respectively). Conclusions Sensitivity of the case definition is often moderate, and specificity is often high, possibly due to undercoding of depression. Limitations to this study include the use of FP charts data as the reference standard, given the potential for missed or incorrect depression diagnoses. These results suggest that that administrative data can be used as a source of information for both research and surveillance purposes, while remaining aware of these limitations.
dc.identifier.citationBMC Psychiatry. 2019 Jan 07;19(1):9
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1990-6
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1880/109437
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s).
dc.titleValidation of a case definition for depression in administrative data against primary chart data as a reference standard
dc.typeJournal Article
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
12888_2018_Article_1990.pdf
Size:
568.37 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
0 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Open Access Publications