Skip to main content

Table 5 Appraisal of data quality

From: Comparison of diabetes management in five countries for general and indigenous populations: an internet-based review

Country

Data source/year

Quality assessment score

  

Sample representativeness

National coverage of diabetes care data

Measurement objectiveness

Response rate

Overall score*

Australia

General Practice Divisions Information Online System 2006-07 [26]

0

Voluntary participation by GPs and general practices

1

65% (77/119) of divisions provided data

1

Clinical records

Not applicable

0.66

 

National General Practice Divisions Diabetes Program, 2002 [35, 36]

0

Voluntary participation by GPs and general practices

0

13% (16/120) of divisions provided data

1

Clinical records

Not applicable

0.33

 

Australian National Diabetes Information Audit & Benchmarking 2006 [27]

0

Convenience sampling of one month clinical encounter data

0

27% (16/60) of Diabetes Centres provided data

1

Clinical records

Not applicable

0.33

 

Health Insurance Commission General Practice Statistics, 1999-2000 [1]

1

whole population data

1

Whole population coverage

1

Insurance billing data related to laboratory tests

Not applicable

1

 

The Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), 1999-2000 [34, 37]

1

Stratified, multi-stage sampling

1

Nation wide

0.5

Interviews

Laboratory tests

1

> 60%

0.88

Canada

Canadian Community Health Survey 2005 [28]

1

Stratified, multi-stage sampling

0

46% (6/13) of Canadian provinces/territories provided data

0

Interviews

1

> 60%

0.50

New Zealand

National Get Checked Programme 2006 [29]

1

Whole population data

1

64% of estimated diabetes patients in the country

1

Clinical records

Not applicable

1

The US

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), 2004 [30]

1

Representative sample of households

1

Nation wide

0

interviews

1

> 60%

0.75

 

CDC Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) [20]

1

Representative sample of adults

1

Nation wide

0

Telephone interviews

1

> 60%

0.75

 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004 [30]

1

Representative sample

1

Nation wide

0.5

Interviews

Laboratory

1

> 60%

0.88

 

Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS), 2006 [31]

1

Representative patient records from managed care organisations

1

90% of the US health plans provided data

1

Clinical records

Not applicable

1

 

Indian Health Service, Clinical Reporting System, 2006 [32]

1

All patient records from participating health facilities

1

All 12 Indian Health Service Areas provided data

1

Clinical records

Not applicable

1

The UK

National Diabetes Audit 2005-2006 [33]

1

All patient records from participating primary and secondary care sectors

0

43% (131/305) of Primary Care Trust and 52% (102/196) of specialist paediatric units provided data

1

Clinical records

Not applicable

0.66

  1. * Grading of the quality assessment score: 0-0.33 (poor); 0.34-0.66 (satisfactory); 0.67-1 (good)