Zimmermann T, Kaduszkiewicz H, vd Bussche H, Schön G, Wegscheider K, Werle J, Weyerer S, Wiese B, Olbrich J, Weeg D, Riedel-Heller S, Luppa M, Jessen F, Abholz H H, Maier W, Pentzek M
Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2012 Feb;55(2):260-9. doi: 10.1007/s00103-011-1414-y.
Data on prevalence of chronic diseases are important for planning health care services. Such prevalence data are mostly based on patient self-reports, claims data, or other research data-with limited validity and reliability partially due to their cross-sectional character. Currently, only claims data of statutory health insurance offer longitudinal information. In Germany, these data show a loss of diagnoses of chronic health conditions over time. This study investigated whether there is a similar tendency of loss in the documentation of chronic diseases in data specifically collected for a longitudinal cohort study by general practitioners. In addition, the explanatory power of patient or GP characteristics regarding these losses is investigated.
A total of 3,327 patients aged 75 years and older were recruited for the German Study on Ageing, Cognition and Dementia in Primary Care Patients (AgeCoDe). For 1,765 patients, GP diagnoses of four chronic conditions at three time points were available for a total period of 4.5 years. In order to explain the loss of chronic diagnoses, a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed.
Over the course of 4.5 years, 18.6% of the diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, 34.5% of the diagnoses of coronary heart disease, and 44.9% of the diagnoses of stroke disappeared in the GP documentation for the longitudinal study. The diagnosis of coronary heart disease was less often lost in men than in women. The risk of losing the diagnosis of diabetes was higher in patients who were well known by the GP for a long time. An essential part of the variance of the losses can be explained by practice (owner) effects.
Data on morbidity collected in epidemiological studies and reported by physicians should always be checked for validity and reliability. Appropriate options (e.g., an investigator collecting the data directly in the field or the comparison of the data with health insurance companies' claims data) are presented and discussed.
慢性病患病率数据对医疗服务规划很重要。此类患病率数据大多基于患者自我报告、理赔数据或其他研究数据,部分由于其横断面特征,有效性和可靠性有限。目前,只有法定健康保险的理赔数据提供纵向信息。在德国,这些数据显示慢性病诊断随时间推移有所减少。本研究调查了在全科医生专门为纵向队列研究收集的数据中,慢性病记录是否也有类似的减少趋势。此外,还研究了患者或全科医生特征对这些减少情况的解释力。
共有3327名75岁及以上的患者被纳入德国初级保健患者老龄化、认知与痴呆研究(AgeCoDe)。对于1765名患者,在三个时间点有全科医生对四种慢性病的诊断,总时长为4.5年。为了解释慢性病诊断的减少情况,进行了多层次混合效应逻辑回归分析。
在4.5年的时间里,纵向研究的全科医生记录中,18.6%的糖尿病诊断、34.5%的冠心病诊断和44.9%的中风诊断消失了。冠心病诊断在男性中比在女性中更少丢失。长期为全科医生所熟知的患者中,糖尿病诊断丢失的风险更高。损失差异的一个重要部分可以由诊所(所有者)效应来解释。
流行病学研究中收集并由医生报告的发病率数据应始终检查其有效性和可靠性。文中提出并讨论了合适的选择(例如,由研究人员直接在现场收集数据或与健康保险公司的理赔数据进行数据比较)。