Methodological Processes in Validating and Analysing the Quality of Population-Based Data: A Case Study Using the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection

Abstract

This paper describes methods used and results obtained from a study that measured the accuracy of a routinely collected population-based data set. Data on a random sample of births were extracted from the 2003 Victorian Perinatal Data Collection (VPDC) and compared with information in the original medical record. Accuracy was calculated for 111 items related to diverse aspects of maternity and neonatal health and care. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for dichotomous items. Seventynine items were accurate in at least 97% of cases, 45 of them in at least 99% of cases, and accuracy was below 90% for five items. Very high specificities demonstrate that conditions were rarely reported in error. Lower sensitivities indicate that some events that occurred went unreported on the perinatal form. The excellent results for specifi city indicated that the dataset is appropriate for a conservative analysis of relationships between factors. The lower sensitivities could result in true relationships between factors remaining unidentified. Reasons for discrepancies between the VPDC and the original medical record are described.

Maternal region of birth and stillbirth in Victoria, Australia 2000–2011: A retrospective cohort study of Victorian perinatal data

“…For every birth ≥ 20 weeks gestation (or ≥400g birth weight if gestation not known), regardless of place of birth the VPDC receives a standardised report detailing over 100 items regarding maternal characteristics, obstetric conditions, procedures and outcomes, perinatal mortality and morbidity and, birth defects. Validation of the accuracy of the dataset has been reported for two of the years included in this study– 2003 and 2011[16, 17]. The most recent validation assessed 93 variables in the dataset with 17 variables having 99% accuracy and 46 having 95% accuracy.…”

Disparities in pre‐eclampsia and eclampsia among immigrant women giving birth in six industrialised countries

“…These databases have been previously used for perinatal research and have been found to be of good quality. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Each participating centre was responsible for assessing the internal consistency and quality of the definitions in the data sets across years and jurisdictions and to obtain ethical approval to share the data for pooled analyses. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.…”

Variations in first‐time caesarean birth between Eastern African immigrants and Australian‐born women in public care: A population‐based investigation in Victoria

“…The strengths of this study were as follows: first, we studied caesarean birth for specific Eastern African countries after excluding women with previous caesarean, a single most important risk factor for subsequent CS; second, we analysed a large routinely collected, highly accurate data set; and third, we accounted for a number of potential confounders. However, routine data do present some limitations.…”

“…Data are checked for completeness on submission to the VPDC, and inconsistencies or incomplete data are queried with the reporting hospital. Internal validation of the quality and reliability of data is regularly performed to verify accuracy . Data include information on maternal characteristics (including self‐reported maternal country of birth), medical and obstetric conditions, procedures in labour, mode of birth, and maternal and infant outcomes.…”