Journal of epidemiology and population health · 2024
Assessing agreement between population-level administrative pharmaceutical databases and patient-reported medication dispensation in cardiac rehabilitation patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Southern Danielle A, Rouleau Codie, Wilton Stephen B, Aggarwal Sandeep G, Graham Michelle M, Youngson Erik, McAlister Finlay A, Quan Hude
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pharmacoepidemiology has emerged as a crucial field in evaluating the use and effects of medications in large populations to ensure their safe and effective use. This study aimed to assess the agreement of cardiac medication use between a provincial medication database, the Pharmaceutical Information Network (PIN), and reconciled medication data from confirmation through patient interviews for patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation.
METHODS: The study included data from patients referred to the TotalCardiology Rehabilitation CR program, and medication data was available in both TotalCardiology Rehabilitation charts and PIN. The accuracy of medication data obtained from patient interviews was compared to that obtained from PIN with proportions and kappa statistics to evaluate the reliability of PIN data in assessing medication use.
RESULTS: Patient-reported usage was higher for statins (41.6 %) vs. 38.4 %), ACE/ARB, beta-blockers (75.7 %) vs. 73.7 %), DOAC (3.5 %) vs. 2.6 %), and ADP-receptor antagonists (71.0 %) vs. 68.1 %) than if PIN was used. Patient-reported usage data was lower for Ezetimibe (4.7 vs. 4.8 %), Aldosterone antagonists (5.4 %) vs. 5.5 %), digoxin (0.9 %) vs. 1.0 %), calcium channel blockers (19.2 vs. 19.9 %) and warfarin (7.2 %) vs. 8.1 %). The results indicated that the differences between the two sources were very small, with an average agreement of 95.3 % and a kappa of 0.70.
CONCLUSION: The study's results, which show a high level of agreement between PIN and patient self-reporting, affirm the reliability of PIN data as a source for obtaining an accurate assessment of medication use. This finding is crucial in the context of pharmacoepidemiology research, where the accuracy of data is paramount. Further research to explore the complementary use of both data sources will be valuable.
METHODS: The study included data from patients referred to the TotalCardiology Rehabilitation CR program, and medication data was available in both TotalCardiology Rehabilitation charts and PIN. The accuracy of medication data obtained from patient interviews was compared to that obtained from PIN with proportions and kappa statistics to evaluate the reliability of PIN data in assessing medication use.
RESULTS: Patient-reported usage was higher for statins (41.6 %) vs. 38.4 %), ACE/ARB, beta-blockers (75.7 %) vs. 73.7 %), DOAC (3.5 %) vs. 2.6 %), and ADP-receptor antagonists (71.0 %) vs. 68.1 %) than if PIN was used. Patient-reported usage data was lower for Ezetimibe (4.7 vs. 4.8 %), Aldosterone antagonists (5.4 %) vs. 5.5 %), digoxin (0.9 %) vs. 1.0 %), calcium channel blockers (19.2 vs. 19.9 %) and warfarin (7.2 %) vs. 8.1 %). The results indicated that the differences between the two sources were very small, with an average agreement of 95.3 % and a kappa of 0.70.
CONCLUSION: The study's results, which show a high level of agreement between PIN and patient self-reporting, affirm the reliability of PIN data as a source for obtaining an accurate assessment of medication use. This finding is crucial in the context of pharmacoepidemiology research, where the accuracy of data is paramount. Further research to explore the complementary use of both data sources will be valuable.