Cargando…

Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England

BACKGROUND: The percentage of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage is reported publicly for geographically-defined populations corresponding to healthcare commissioning organisations in England, and linked to pay-for-performance targets. Given that stage is incompletely recorded, we investiga...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barclay, Matthew E., Lyratzopoulos, Georgios, Greenberg, David C., Abel, Gary A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29175263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2017.11.005
_version_ 1783295812595351552
author Barclay, Matthew E.
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Greenberg, David C.
Abel, Gary A.
author_facet Barclay, Matthew E.
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Greenberg, David C.
Abel, Gary A.
author_sort Barclay, Matthew E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The percentage of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage is reported publicly for geographically-defined populations corresponding to healthcare commissioning organisations in England, and linked to pay-for-performance targets. Given that stage is incompletely recorded, we investigated the extent to which this indicator reflects underlying organisational differences rather than differences in stage completeness and chance variation. METHODS: We used population-based data on patients diagnosed with one of ten cancer sites in 2013 (bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, ovarian, prostate, renal, NHL, and melanoma). We assessed the degree of bias in CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) indicators introduced by missing-is-late and complete-case specifications compared with an imputed ‘gold standard’. We estimated the Spearman-Brown (organisation-level) reliability of the complete-case specification. We assessed probable misclassification rates against current pay-for-performance targets. RESULTS: Under the missing-is-late approach, bias in estimated CCG percentage of tumours diagnosed at an early stage ranged from −2 to −30 percentage points, while bias under the complete-case approach ranged from −2 to +7 percentage points. Using an annual reporting period, indicators based on the least biased complete-case approach would have poor reliability, misclassifying 27/209 (13%) CCGs against a pay-for-performance target in current use; only half (53%) of CCGs apparently exceeding the target would be correctly classified in terms of their underlying performance. CONCLUSIONS: Current public reporting schemes for cancer stage at diagnosis in England should use a complete-case specification (i.e. the number of staged cases forming the denominator) and be based on three-year reporting periods. Early stage indicators for the studied geographies should not be used in pay-for-performance schemes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5786666
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57866662018-02-01 Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England Barclay, Matthew E. Lyratzopoulos, Georgios Greenberg, David C. Abel, Gary A. Cancer Epidemiol Article BACKGROUND: The percentage of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage is reported publicly for geographically-defined populations corresponding to healthcare commissioning organisations in England, and linked to pay-for-performance targets. Given that stage is incompletely recorded, we investigated the extent to which this indicator reflects underlying organisational differences rather than differences in stage completeness and chance variation. METHODS: We used population-based data on patients diagnosed with one of ten cancer sites in 2013 (bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, ovarian, prostate, renal, NHL, and melanoma). We assessed the degree of bias in CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) indicators introduced by missing-is-late and complete-case specifications compared with an imputed ‘gold standard’. We estimated the Spearman-Brown (organisation-level) reliability of the complete-case specification. We assessed probable misclassification rates against current pay-for-performance targets. RESULTS: Under the missing-is-late approach, bias in estimated CCG percentage of tumours diagnosed at an early stage ranged from −2 to −30 percentage points, while bias under the complete-case approach ranged from −2 to +7 percentage points. Using an annual reporting period, indicators based on the least biased complete-case approach would have poor reliability, misclassifying 27/209 (13%) CCGs against a pay-for-performance target in current use; only half (53%) of CCGs apparently exceeding the target would be correctly classified in terms of their underlying performance. CONCLUSIONS: Current public reporting schemes for cancer stage at diagnosis in England should use a complete-case specification (i.e. the number of staged cases forming the denominator) and be based on three-year reporting periods. Early stage indicators for the studied geographies should not be used in pay-for-performance schemes. Elsevier 2018-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5786666/ /pubmed/29175263 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2017.11.005 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Barclay, Matthew E.
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Greenberg, David C.
Abel, Gary A.
Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England
title Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England
title_full Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England
title_fullStr Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England
title_full_unstemmed Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England
title_short Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England
title_sort missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in england
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29175263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2017.11.005
work_keys_str_mv AT barclaymatthewe missingdataandchancevariationinpublicreportingofcancerstageatdiagnosiscrosssectionalanalysisofpopulationbaseddatainengland
AT lyratzopoulosgeorgios missingdataandchancevariationinpublicreportingofcancerstageatdiagnosiscrosssectionalanalysisofpopulationbaseddatainengland
AT greenbergdavidc missingdataandchancevariationinpublicreportingofcancerstageatdiagnosiscrosssectionalanalysisofpopulationbaseddatainengland
AT abelgarya missingdataandchancevariationinpublicreportingofcancerstageatdiagnosiscrosssectionalanalysisofpopulationbaseddatainengland