Cargando…

Data quality assessment and subsampling strategies to correct distributional bias in prevalence studies

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) represent a major Public Health issue. Hospital-based prevalence studies are a common tool of HAI surveillance, but data quality problems and non-representativeness can undermine their reliability. METHODS: This study proposes three algorithms that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: D’Ambrosio, A., Garlasco, J., Quattrocolo, F., Vicentini, C., Zotti, C. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33931025
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01277-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) represent a major Public Health issue. Hospital-based prevalence studies are a common tool of HAI surveillance, but data quality problems and non-representativeness can undermine their reliability. METHODS: This study proposes three algorithms that, given a convenience sample and variables relevant for the outcome of the study, select a subsample with specific distributional characteristics, boosting either representativeness (Probability and Distance procedures) or risk factors’ balance (Uniformity procedure). A “Quality Score” (QS) was also developed to grade sampled units according to data completeness and reliability. The methodologies were evaluated through bootstrapping on a convenience sample of 135 hospitals collected during the 2016 Italian Point Prevalence Survey (PPS) on HAIs. RESULTS: The QS highlighted wide variations in data quality among hospitals (median QS 52.9 points, range 7.98–628, lower meaning better quality), with most problems ascribable to ward and hospital-related data reporting. Both Distance and Probability procedures produced subsamples with lower distributional bias (Log-likelihood score increased from 7.3 to 29 points). The Uniformity procedure increased the homogeneity of the sample characteristics (e.g., − 58.4% in geographical variability). The procedures selected hospitals with higher data quality, especially the Probability procedure (lower QS in 100% of bootstrap simulations). The Distance procedure produced lower HAI prevalence estimates (6.98% compared to 7.44% in the convenience sample), more in line with the European median. CONCLUSIONS: The QS and the subsampling procedures proposed in this study could represent effective tools to improve the quality of prevalence studies, decreasing the biases that can arise due to non-probabilistic sample collection. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01277-y.