| Title |
Self-selection in a population-based cohort study: impact on health service use and survival for bowel and lung cancer assessed using data linkage
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0537-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola Creighton, Stuart Purdie, Matthew Soeberg, Richard Walton, Deborah Baker, Jane Young |
| Abstract |
In contrast to aetiological associations, there is little empirical evidence for generalising health service use associations from cohort studies. We compared the health service use of cohort study participants diagnosed with bowel or lung cancer to the source population of people diagnosed with these cancers in New South Wales (NSW), Australia to assess the representativeness of health service use of the cohort study participants. Population-based cancer registry data for NSW residents aged ≥45 years at diagnosis of bowel or lung cancer were linked to the 45 and Up Study, a NSW population-based cohort study (N~ 267,000). We measured hospitalisation, emergency department (ED) attendance and all-cause survival, and risk factor associations with these outcomes using administrative data for cohort study participants and the source population. We assessed bias in prevalence and risk factor associations using ratios of relative frequency (RRF) and relative odds ratios (ROR), respectively. People from major cities, non-English speaking countries and with comorbidites were under-represented among cohort study participants diagnosed with bowel (n = 1837) or lung (n = 969) cancer by 20-50%. Cohort study participants had similar hospitalisation and ED attendance compared with the source population. One-year survival after major surgical resection was similar, but cohort study participants had up to 25% higher post-diagnosis survival (lung cancer 3-year survival: RRF = 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.12,1.37). Except for area-based socioeconomic position, risk factors associations with health service use measures and survival appeared relatively unbiased. Absolute measures of health service use and risk factor associations in a non-representative sample showed little evidence of bias. Non-comparability of risk factor measures of cohort study participants and non-participants, such as area-based socioeconomic position, may bias estimates of risk factor associations. Primary and outpatient care outcomes may be more vulnerable to bias. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,831,917
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#831
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,914
of 331,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.