The reporting of pre-existing maternal medical conditions and complications of pregnancy on birth certificates and in hospital discharge data

Lydon‐Rochelle, Mona T.; Holt, Victoria L.; Cárdenas, Vicky; Nelson, Jennifer C.; Easterling, Thomas R.; Gardella, Carolyn; Callaghan, William M.

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.096

Cited by 318 publications

(267 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

254

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…33,35 In contrast, this study found that birth records provided a higher enumeration of pregnant smokers than hospital admission records. This is likely to reflect the fact that birth records are primarily collected for surveillance purposes and include a specific, mandatory data item for smoking.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…Linking birth data to hospital admission data has provided greater sensitivities of maternal morbidity diagnoses, birth outcomes and intrapartum procedures without any increase in false positives. [32][33][34][35][36] Studies in the US have demonstrated that combining information from birth certificates and confidential questionnaires yielded higher estimates of maternal smoking prevalence. 22,26 Little is known in Australia about the extent to which linking birth data with hospital admission data improves the identification of pregnant smokers and its potential impact on estimates of maternal smoking prevalence, and risks of smokingrelated adverse pregnancy outcomes including placental abruption, preterm delivery, stillbirth and low birthweight.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linking birth records to hospital admission records enhances the identification of women who smoke during pregnancy

Tran

Roberts

Havard

et al. 2014

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Birth records and hospital admission records are valuable for research on maternal smoking, but individually are known to under-estimate smokers. This study investigated the extent to which combining data from these records enhances the identification of pregnant smokers, and whether this affects research findings such as estimates of maternal smoking prevalence and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with smoking. Methods:A total of 846,039 birth records in New South Wales, Australia, (2001Australia, ( -2010 were linked to hospital admission records (delivery and antenatal). Algorithm 1 combined data from birth and delivery admission records, whereas algorithm 2 combined data from birth record, delivery and antenatal admission records. Associations between smoking and placental abruption, preterm birth, stillbirth, and low birthweight were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.Results: Algorithm 1 identified 127,612 smokers (smoking prevalence 15.1%), which was a 9.6% and 54.6% increase over the unenhanced identification from birth records alone (prevalence 13.8%), and delivery admission records alone (prevalence 9.8%), respectively. Algorithm 2 identified a further 2,408 smokers from antenatal admission records. The enhancement varied by maternal socio-demographic characteristics (age, marital status, country of birth, socioeconomic status); obstetric factors (multi-fetal pregnancy, diabetes, hypertension); and maternity hospital. Enhanced and unenhanced identification methods yielded similar odds ratios for placental abruption, preterm birth, stillbirth and low birthweight. Conclusions:Use of linked data improved the identification of pregnant smokers. Studies relying on a single data source should adjust for the under-ascertainment of smokers among certain obstetric populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking birth records to hospital admission records enhances the identification of women who smoke during pregnancy

Tran

Roberts

Havard

et al. 2014

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has been documentation of underreporting of medical risk factors and complications of labor and delivery on birth certificates. [13][14][15] However, we would expect that reporting of a risk factor or complication associated with a resulting cesarean would be encouraged. Most importantly, because we examined changes in cesarean rates among women at "no indicated risk" over time, there is no reason to expect that bias would result in a change in reporting of these variables at different time periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cesarean Delivery: Background, Trends, and Epidemiology

Menacker

Declercq

MacDorman

2006

Seminars in Perinatology

269

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous validation studies of the 1989 version of the U.S. birth certificate documented high specificity for most items and high sensitivity or agreement for a limited number of items, including maternal demographics, delivery method, and infant birthweight, and low-to-moderate sensitivity or agreement for obstetric and medical risk factors. [1][2][3][4][5] The sensitivity of some items varied by maternal characteristics; indicators from birth certificates of infants born to Hispanic mothers and those not proficient in English had some of the lowest sensitivity estimates. 4 In 2003, a new revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth was released by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) with some items from the 1989 revision and new items added.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Selected Items on the 2003 U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth: New York City and Vermont

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. We assessed the validity of selected items on the 2003 revised U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth to understand the accuracy of new and existing items.Methods. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of select variables reported on the birth certificate using the medical record as the gold standard for a representative sample of live births in New York City (n5603) and Vermont (n5664) in 2009.Results. In both sites, sensitivity was excellent (.90%) for Medicaid coverage at delivery, any previous live births, and current method of delivery; sensitivity was moderate (70%-90%) for gestational diabetes; and sensitivity was poor (,70%) for premature rupture of the membranes and gestational hypertension. In both sites, PPV was excellent for Medicaid coverage, any previous live births, previous cesarean delivery, and current method of delivery, and poor for premature rupture of membranes. In both sites, almost all items had excellent (.90%) specificity and NPV.Conclusion. Further research is needed to determine how best to improve the quality of data on the birth certificate. Future revisions of the birth certificate may consider removing those items that have consistently proven difficult to report accurately.

show abstract

The reporting of pre-existing maternal medical conditions and complications of pregnancy on birth certificates and in hospital discharge data

Cited by 318 publications

References 17 publications

Linking birth records to hospital admission records enhances the identification of women who smoke during pregnancy

Linking birth records to hospital admission records enhances the identification of women who smoke during pregnancy

Cesarean Delivery: Background, Trends, and Epidemiology

Validation of Selected Items on the 2003 U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth: New York City and Vermont

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About