Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 7589948

Computerised data collection: practicability and quality in selected general practices.

Abstract

The objective of the study as to assess the consistency with which a set of pre-defined data about three fictitious patients was entered into a sample group of practice computer systems, and to measure the time required for routine data capture of this kind. The study design was a prospective, piloted, postal survey, in which respondents were requested to enter a variety of general sample data onto their systems, to time the process, and record details of any difficulties. The subjects were 76 (39%) responding general practices in England and Ulster, from a random sample of members of a GP computer specialist group. These results (which in view of the highly motivated characteristics of the responding sample are likely to represent best practice) showed that differing conventions were applied in entering patient data, even among practices using the same type of computer system. Potentially significant errors and distortions were found in the data as recorded in the systems, such as the 29% of immunisation sequences which were slightly inaccurately entered. The main problems with the data entry comprised simple operator errors, inconsistency in the use of terms entered, and difficulties in recording negative data (only 20% of practices could enter patient 'not incontinent'). Practices varied widely in the way they allocated data recording responsibilities to staff, with only 6% of practices involving all staff in data entry.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F D Hobbs, A Hawker. 1995. Computerised data collection: practicability and quality in selected general practices.. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra%2F12.2.221

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI.

Assessment of test bias is important to establish the construct validity of tests. Assessment of differential item functioning (DIF) is an important first step in this process. DIF is present when examinees from different groups have differing probabilities of success on an item, after controlling for overall ability level. Here, we present analysis of DIF in the Cognitive Assessment Screening Instrument (CASI) using data from a large cohort study of elderly adults. We developed an ordinal logistic regression modelling technique to assess test items for DIF. Estimates of cognitive ability were obtained in two ways based on responses to CASI items: using traditional CASI scoring according to the original test instructions as well as using item response theory (IRT) scoring. Several demographic characteristics were examined for potential DIF, including ethnicity and gender (entered into the model as dichotomous variables), and years of education and age (entered as continuous variables). We found that a disappointingly large number of items had DIF with respect to at least one of these demographic variables. More items were found to have DIF with traditional CASI scoring than with IRT scoring. This study demonstrates a powerful technique for the evaluation of DIF in psychometric tests. The finding that so many CASI items had DIF suggests that previous findings of differences between groups in cognitive functioning as measured by the CASI may be due to biased test items rather than true differences between groups. The finding that IRT scoring diminished the impact of DIF is discussed. Some preliminary suggestions for how to deal with items found to have DIF in cognitive tests are made. The advantages of the DIF detection techniques we developed are discussed in relation to other techniques for the evaluation of DIF.

Bias↗