			Home About us Contact

Differential Reporting (differential + reporting)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Self-reported use of mental health services versus administrative records: care to recall?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF METHODS IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, Issue 3 2004
Anne E. Rhodes
Abstract Estimates of the level of unmet need for mental health treatment often rely on self-reported use of mental health services. However, depressed persons may over-report their use in relation to administrative records if they are highly distressed. This study seeks to replicate and explicate the finding that persons at a high level of distress report more mental health service use than recorded in their healthcare records. The study sample, N=36,892, 12 years and older, was drawn from the 1996/97 Ontario portion of the Canadian National Population Health Survey. Respondents were individually linked to their administrative mental healthcare records 12 months backward in time. Of these, 96.5% agreed to the link and 23,063 (62.5%) were linked. Almost two-thirds of those who were depressed in the past year were currently at a high level of distress. Differential reporting of use for highly distressed persons in excess of 100% remained in the use of different types of physician providers after adjustments for other potential determinants of use. Telescoping was also not an explanation. The patterns of differential reporting between groups expected to diverge and converge in their recall ability were consistent with a recall bias. As this study was not able to rule out a recall bias, it further accentuates concerns about the impact of bias in the measurement of mental health-service use and inferences made concerning the determinants of use. Copyright © 2004 Whurr Publishers Ltd. [source]

Parent,ETH;child agreement and prevalence estimates of diagnoses in childhood: Direct interview versus family history method

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF METHODS IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, Issue 2 2009
Stéphane Rothen
Abstract Diagnostic information on children is typically elicited from both children and their parents. The aims of the present paper were to: (1) compare prevalence estimates according to maternal reports, paternal reports and direct interviews of children [major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety and attention-deficit and disruptive behavioural disorders]; (2) assess mother,child, father,child and inter-parental agreement for these disorders; (3) determine the association between several child, parent and familial characteristics and the degree of diagnostic agreement or the likelihood of parental reporting; (4) determine the predictive validity of diagnostic information provided by parents and children. Analyses were based on 235 mother,offspring, 189 father,offspring and 128 mother,father pairs. Diagnostic assessment included the Kiddie-schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) (offspring) and the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) (parents and offspring at follow-up) interviews. Parental reports were collected using the Family History , Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC). Analyses revealed: (1) prevalence estimates for internalizing disorders were generally lower according to parental information than according to the K-SADS; (2) mother,child and father,child agreement was poor and within similar ranges; (3) parents with a history of MDD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) reported these disorders in their children more frequently; (4) in a sub-sample followed-up into adulthood, diagnoses of MDD, separation anxiety and conduct disorder at baseline concurred with the corresponding lifetime diagnosis at age 19 according to the child rather than according to the parents. In conclusion, our findings support large discrepancies of diagnostic information provided by parents and children with generally lower reporting of internalizing disorders by parents, and differential reporting of depression and ADHD by parental disease status. Follow-up data also supports the validity of information provided by adolescent offspring. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Self-reported use of mental health services versus administrative records: care to recall?

Use of parenteral iron products and serious anaphylactic-type reactions,,§

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY, Issue 9 2010
Diane K. Wysowski
Controversy exists about the safety of the parenteral iron dextran products, Dexferrum and INFeD, which have been associated with rare, serious anaphylactic-type reactions. In the United States, their product labels carry boxed warnings of this adverse event; some have called for the withdrawal from marketing of the higher molecular weight Dexferrum. Between 2002 and 2007, sales of Dexferrum, INFeD, and iron gluconate Ferrlecit declined 32.5%, 21%, and 4.8%, respectively, while sales of iron sucrose Venofer increased 160%. Voluntary reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration show anaphylactic reactions and symptoms for the four parenteral iron products. Because of underreporting, possible differential reporting, absence of iron dextran brand names, and incomplete use (denominator) data, incidence rates and relative risk estimates cannot be calculated. U.S. death certificate data show that for most years from 1979 through 2006, no more than 3 deaths per year were coded to "adverse events in therapeutic use of iron preparations;" brand names were not consistently recorded. Emergency department data show small numbers of visits for treatment of allergic reactions with intravenous iron preparations. The data presented herein show that allergic reactions are possible with all four parenteral iron products, and it is difficult to determine which product has the largest risk based on sales data, voluntarily submitted adverse event reports, death certificates, ED visits, and observational studies performed to date. To help differentiate risk among the parenteral iron products, the brand name of the product always should be provided on medical records, death certificates, and adverse drug reaction reports. Am. J. Hematol., 2010. Published 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

Biases affecting the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) in spontaneous reports pharmacovigilance databases: the example of sertindole

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, Issue 4 2003
Nicholas Moore
Abstract Background Automated measures of reporting disproportionality in databases of spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions are an emerging tool to identify drug-related alerts. Sertindole, a new atypical neuroleptic known to prolong the QT interval, was suspended in November 1998 because the proportion of reports of fatal reactions suggesting arrhythmia among all reports with sertindole was almost ten times higher than that for other atypical neuroleptics in the UK. This excess risk was not predicted in preclinical data and had not been found in premarketing trials. Method Reporting patterns over time were analysed. Prescription Event Monitoring (PEM) studies and a large retrospective cohort allowed for the comparison of actual death rates with atypical neuroleptics, and to assess which proportion of the deaths that occurred were reported. Results There were indications of possible skewing of reporting related to notoriety, surveillance and market size effects. Death rates in PEM studies were essentially similar between sertindole and other neuroleptics. Cardiac deaths had been two to three times more often reported than other causes of death. Conclusion Proportional reporting ratios indicate differential reporting of possible reactions, not necessarily differential occurrence. There was no indication of an actual increase of risk of all causes or cardiac deaths during sertindole treatment, but only an increased risk of its being reported. The suspension of sertindole was rescinded by Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) in October 2001. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]