4.4 Article

Mortality Ascertainment of Women Veterans A Comparison of Sources of Vital Status Information, 1979-2002

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 125-128

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181809125

关键词

administrative databases; death certificates; female; mortality; veterans

资金

  1. National Institute of Cancer [R03CA10351-01A2, 2R25CA57712-11, R01CA076330]
  2. Health Resources and Services Administration [5 T32 HP10031-09]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA076330, R25CA057712, R03CA103512] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To support health research on the unique cohort of women with a history of military service, this study assessed the completeness of mortality ascertainment for Texas women veterans in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA databases. Methods: We examined female veteran-specific mortality ascertainment comparing the VA Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem Death File (BIRLS DF), VA Patient Treatment Files (PTF), and Social Security Administration-Death Master File (SSA-DMF) with Texas death certificate data. Databases were deterministically cross-linked, using female sex and social security numbers. Deterministic and probabilistic linkage methods were also compared. Results: Of 6297 decedents identified by death certificates, SSA-DMF, BIRLS DF, and PTF databases identified 97.5% collectively and 94%, 77%, and 5% individually. Compared with Texas death certificates, sensitivity of VA and SSA databases improved with increasing age. Conclusions: This study highlights that although the VA and SSA administrative databases have less complete ascertainment for younger decedents, combined these electronic databases provide nearly complete ascertainment for women veterans. Challenges related to large female-specific cross-linkage studies are explored, and a need to examine methods for female-specific health research studies in the general population is identified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据