Cargando…

Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes

INTRODUCTION: The under-reporting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on routinely collected health datasets has important implications for understanding the health of this population. By pooling available information on individuals’ Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status from proba...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McInerney, C, Ibiebele, I, Torvaldsen, S, Ford, JB, Morris, JM, Nelson, M, Randall, D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Swansea University 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32935046
http://dx.doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1114
_version_ 1783579153475305472
author McInerney, C
Ibiebele, I
Torvaldsen, S
Ford, JB
Morris, JM
Nelson, M
Randall, D
author_facet McInerney, C
Ibiebele, I
Torvaldsen, S
Ford, JB
Morris, JM
Nelson, M
Randall, D
author_sort McInerney, C
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The under-reporting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on routinely collected health datasets has important implications for understanding the health of this population. By pooling available information on individuals’ Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status from probabilistically linked datasets, methods have been developed to adjust for this under-reporting. OBJECTIVES: To explore different algorithms that enhance reporting of Aboriginal status in birth data to define a cohort of Aboriginal women, examine any differences between women recorded as Aboriginal and those assigned enhanced Aboriginal status, and assess the effects of using different reported populations to estimate within-group comparisons for Aboriginal people. METHODS: Three algorithms, with different levels of inclusiveness, were used to establish different study populations all of which aimed to include all singleton babies born to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women residing in New South Wales, Australia between 2010 and 2014 and their mothers. The demographics of the four study populations were described and compared using frequencies and percentages. In order to assess the impact on research outcomes and conclusions of using study populations derived from different algorithms, estimates of the associations between smoking during pregnancy and selected perinatal outcomes were compared using rates and relative risks. RESULTS: Women included in the study population through enhanced reporting were older, less disadvantaged and more commonly resided in urban areas than those recorded as Aboriginal in the birth data. Although rates of smoking and some perinatal outcomes differed between the different study populations, the relative risks of each outcome comparing smoking and non-smoking Aboriginal mothers were very similar when estimated from each of the study populations. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides evidence that estimates of within-group relative risks are reliable regardless of the assumptions made for establishing the study population through the enhanced reporting of indigenous peoples.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7473280
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Swansea University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74732802020-09-14 Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes McInerney, C Ibiebele, I Torvaldsen, S Ford, JB Morris, JM Nelson, M Randall, D Int J Popul Data Sci Population Data Science INTRODUCTION: The under-reporting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on routinely collected health datasets has important implications for understanding the health of this population. By pooling available information on individuals’ Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status from probabilistically linked datasets, methods have been developed to adjust for this under-reporting. OBJECTIVES: To explore different algorithms that enhance reporting of Aboriginal status in birth data to define a cohort of Aboriginal women, examine any differences between women recorded as Aboriginal and those assigned enhanced Aboriginal status, and assess the effects of using different reported populations to estimate within-group comparisons for Aboriginal people. METHODS: Three algorithms, with different levels of inclusiveness, were used to establish different study populations all of which aimed to include all singleton babies born to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women residing in New South Wales, Australia between 2010 and 2014 and their mothers. The demographics of the four study populations were described and compared using frequencies and percentages. In order to assess the impact on research outcomes and conclusions of using study populations derived from different algorithms, estimates of the associations between smoking during pregnancy and selected perinatal outcomes were compared using rates and relative risks. RESULTS: Women included in the study population through enhanced reporting were older, less disadvantaged and more commonly resided in urban areas than those recorded as Aboriginal in the birth data. Although rates of smoking and some perinatal outcomes differed between the different study populations, the relative risks of each outcome comparing smoking and non-smoking Aboriginal mothers were very similar when estimated from each of the study populations. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides evidence that estimates of within-group relative risks are reliable regardless of the assumptions made for establishing the study population through the enhanced reporting of indigenous peoples. Swansea University 2020-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7473280/ /pubmed/32935046 http://dx.doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1114 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Population Data Science
McInerney, C
Ibiebele, I
Torvaldsen, S
Ford, JB
Morris, JM
Nelson, M
Randall, D
Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes
title Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes
title_full Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes
title_fullStr Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes
title_short Defining a study population using enhanced reporting of Aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes
title_sort defining a study population using enhanced reporting of aboriginality and the effects on study outcomes
topic Population Data Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32935046
http://dx.doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1114
work_keys_str_mv AT mcinerneyc definingastudypopulationusingenhancedreportingofaboriginalityandtheeffectsonstudyoutcomes
AT ibiebelei definingastudypopulationusingenhancedreportingofaboriginalityandtheeffectsonstudyoutcomes
AT torvaldsens definingastudypopulationusingenhancedreportingofaboriginalityandtheeffectsonstudyoutcomes
AT fordjb definingastudypopulationusingenhancedreportingofaboriginalityandtheeffectsonstudyoutcomes
AT morrisjm definingastudypopulationusingenhancedreportingofaboriginalityandtheeffectsonstudyoutcomes
AT nelsonm definingastudypopulationusingenhancedreportingofaboriginalityandtheeffectsonstudyoutcomes
AT randalld definingastudypopulationusingenhancedreportingofaboriginalityandtheeffectsonstudyoutcomes