Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada
Introduction There are two main data sources for perinatal data in Ontario, Canada: the BORN BIS and CIHI-DAD. Such databases are used for perinatal health surveillance and research, and to guide health care related decisions. Objectives Our primary objective was to examine the level of agreement...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Swansea University
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Population Data Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ijpds.org/article/view/2364 |
| _version_ | 1797247988369719296 |
|---|---|
| author | Elizabeth Darling Olivia Marquez Alison Park |
| author_facet | Elizabeth Darling Olivia Marquez Alison Park |
| author_sort | Elizabeth Darling |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Introduction
There are two main data sources for perinatal data in Ontario, Canada: the BORN BIS and CIHI-DAD. Such databases are used for perinatal health surveillance and research, and to guide health care related decisions.
Objectives
Our primary objective was to examine the level of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Our secondary objectives were to identify the differences between the data sources when identifying a low-risk birth (LRB) cohort and to understand their implications.
Methods
We conducted a population-based cohort study comparing characteristics and clinical outcomes of all linkable births in BIS and CIHI-DAD between 1$^{\rm st}$ April 2012 and 31$^{\rm st}$ March 2018. We excluded out-of-hospital births, those with invalid healthcare numbers, non-Ontario residents and gestational age < 20 weeks. We compared the portion of the cohort that met the criteria of a provincial definition of LRB based on each data source and compared clinical outcomes between the groups.
Results
During the study period, 779,979 eligible births were linkable between the two data sources. After applying the LRB exclusions, there were 129,908 cases in the BIS and 136,184 cases in CIHI-DAD. Most exclusion criteria had almost perfect, substantial or moderate agreement. The agreement for non-cephalic presentation and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 (kappa coefficients 0.409 and 0.256, respectively) was fair. Comparison between the two LRB cohorts identified differences in the prevalence of cesarean (14.3% BIS versus 12.0% CIHI-DAD) and NICU admission (8.7% BIS versus 7.5% CIHI-DAD) and only 0.01% difference in the prevalence of ICU admission.
Conclusions
Overall, we found high levels of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Identifying a LRB cohort in either database may be appropriate, with the caveat of appropriate understanding of the collection, coding and definition of certain outcomes. The decision for selecting a database may depend on which variables are most important in a particular analysis.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T20:07:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-13648f9812784e78b9b43bc10a518459 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2399-4908 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T20:07:26Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | Swansea University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Population Data Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-13648f9812784e78b9b43bc10a5184592024-03-23T21:56:46ZengSwansea UniversityInternational Journal of Population Data Science2399-49082024-03-019110.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2364Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, CanadaElizabeth Darling0Olivia Marquez1Alison Park2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5369-7639McMaster Midwifery Research Centre, 1280 Main Street West, HSC 4H24, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1 Canada; ICES McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, HSC 4N43, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1 CanadaMcMaster Midwifery Research Centre, 1280 Main Street West, HSC 4H24, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1 CanadaICES University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 424, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada Introduction There are two main data sources for perinatal data in Ontario, Canada: the BORN BIS and CIHI-DAD. Such databases are used for perinatal health surveillance and research, and to guide health care related decisions. Objectives Our primary objective was to examine the level of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Our secondary objectives were to identify the differences between the data sources when identifying a low-risk birth (LRB) cohort and to understand their implications. Methods We conducted a population-based cohort study comparing characteristics and clinical outcomes of all linkable births in BIS and CIHI-DAD between 1$^{\rm st}$ April 2012 and 31$^{\rm st}$ March 2018. We excluded out-of-hospital births, those with invalid healthcare numbers, non-Ontario residents and gestational age < 20 weeks. We compared the portion of the cohort that met the criteria of a provincial definition of LRB based on each data source and compared clinical outcomes between the groups. Results During the study period, 779,979 eligible births were linkable between the two data sources. After applying the LRB exclusions, there were 129,908 cases in the BIS and 136,184 cases in CIHI-DAD. Most exclusion criteria had almost perfect, substantial or moderate agreement. The agreement for non-cephalic presentation and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 (kappa coefficients 0.409 and 0.256, respectively) was fair. Comparison between the two LRB cohorts identified differences in the prevalence of cesarean (14.3% BIS versus 12.0% CIHI-DAD) and NICU admission (8.7% BIS versus 7.5% CIHI-DAD) and only 0.01% difference in the prevalence of ICU admission. Conclusions Overall, we found high levels of agreement between the BIS and CIHI-DAD. Identifying a LRB cohort in either database may be appropriate, with the caveat of appropriate understanding of the collection, coding and definition of certain outcomes. The decision for selecting a database may depend on which variables are most important in a particular analysis. https://ijpds.org/article/view/2364perinataldatabasebirth registrydata accuracyadministrative datacohort study |
| spellingShingle | Elizabeth Darling Olivia Marquez Alison Park Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada International Journal of Population Data Science perinatal database birth registry data accuracy administrative data cohort study |
| title | Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada |
| title_full | Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada |
| title_fullStr | Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada |
| title_full_unstemmed | Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada |
| title_short | Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada |
| title_sort | defining a low risk birth cohort a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in ontario canada |
| topic | perinatal database birth registry data accuracy administrative data cohort study |
| url | https://ijpds.org/article/view/2364 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elizabethdarling definingalowriskbirthcohortacohortstudycomparingtwoperinataldatasetsinontariocanada AT oliviamarquez definingalowriskbirthcohortacohortstudycomparingtwoperinataldatasetsinontariocanada AT alisonpark definingalowriskbirthcohortacohortstudycomparingtwoperinataldatasetsinontariocanada |