Original articlesValidity of a Self-reported History of Doctor-diagnosed Angina
Introduction
Although epidemiological studies and surveys often rely on subjects’ self-reported medical history to ascertain the presence of a variety of diagnoses and conditions, several investigators have drawn attention to the lack of information regarding the validity of these measures 1, 2, 3. In the field of cardiovascular epidemiology, there are now a number of studies which have addressed this issue by comparing self-reports with medical records for a range of cardiovascular conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. The agreement between these two sources of information has varied considerably depending on the condition in question. Agreement has generally been found to be good or reasonable for relatively well defined diagnoses such as diabetes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and myocardial infarction 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, but of concern is the low level of agreement found for conditions with less clear diagnostic criteria 9, 10. Very few studies have assessed the degree of concordance between self-report and medical record specifically for angina 6, 10, 13.
When assessing the validity of a measurement against a reference or standard, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value are the appropriate analytic measures [15], and these have been used widely in validation studies comparing self-reports with medical records. However, while medical records may provide the best available comparison for self-reported medical history, many authors have acknowledged that they are not an ideal gold standard 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, and some have suggested that it cannot be assumed that they necessarily provide the more accurate source of information 6, 9. Studies investigating the quality and completeness of medical records indicate that errors and omissions are not uncommon 16, 17, 18, in addition, any process used to review the records is likely to introduce a further source of error. It therefore seems inappropriate to judge the validity of self-reported medical history entirely on the basis of comparison with medical records.
This study aimed to investigate the validity of self-reported history of a doctor diagnosis of angina obtained from a self-administered questionnaire in men in the British Regional Heart Study. We examined the agreement between self-report of diagnosed angina and angina ascertained from reviews of medical records. In addition, we also assessed validity by examining the associations of self-reported angina and of recorded angina with other indicators of angina (angina symptoms, cardiological investigations, and treatment), and with the risk of a subsequent new major ischemic heart disease event.
Section snippets
Methods
The British Regional Heart Study (BRHS) is a prospective study of cardiovascular disease in which 7735 middle-aged men, randomly selected from one general practice in each of 24 towns in Britain, have been followed up since 1978–80. Details of selection of towns, general practices, and subjects have been reported [19]. The men were aged 40–59 years at the start of the study, and the baseline examination included a questionnaire administered by research nurses, from which pre-existing
Subjects Included in Validation Study
The 1992 questionnaire (Q92) was mailed to 6582 men who were then aged 52–75 years. Of the original 7735 men, 1088 had died and 65 had emigrated by November 1992. There was a response to the questionnaire from 5934 men (90%), 145 of whom were excluded from the validation study as they had either reported doctor-diagnosed angina at baseline (n = 140) or had not responded to the question on doctor-diagnosed angina at baseline (n = 5).
Prevalence of Diagnosed Angina
Of the remaining 5789 men, a doctor diagnosis of angina was
Discussion
For surviving men in the British Regional Heart Study, the level of agreement between self-report and medical record was substantial for a doctor diagnosis of angina, and very high for a doctor diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (angina or myocardial infarction). However, there was evidence that medical record reviews may not provide an adequate gold standard for diagnosed angina: the prevalence of other indicators of angina and the occurrence of subsequent major ischemic heart disease events
Conclusion
Although self-reported history and medical record reviews used together provide the most complete information on diagnosed angina in epidemiological studies, self-reported history alone appears to have a high degree of validity as a measure of doctor-diagnosed angina in population-based studies in middle-aged and elderly men. The use of self-reported history is further justified when all ischemic heart disease is considered.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Professor A.G. Shaper and Dr. S.G. Wannamethee for their comments. The British Regional Heart Study is a British Heart Foundation Research Group and also receives support from the Department of Health. Fiona Lampe is supported by the Department of Health.
References (30)
- et al.
Validation of interview-based disease classificationA mail survey of physicians
J Chron Dis
(1971) - et al.
Self-reports and general practitioner information on the presence of chronic diseases in community dwelling elderlyA study on the accuracy of the patients’ self-reports and on determinants of inaccuracy
J Clin Epidemiol
(1996) - et al.
Prevalence of angina as assessed by a survey of prescriptions for nitrates
Lancet
(1988) - et al.
Self-reports predictive of mortality from ischemic heart diseaseA nine year follow-up of the Human Population Laboratory cohort
J Chron Dis
(1985) Assuring the quality of questionnaire data in epidemiologic research
Am J Epidemiol
(1979)- et al.
Double standards, scientific methods and epidemiologic research
N Engl J Med
(1982) - et al.
Agreement between questionnaire data and medical recordsThe evidence for accuracy of recall
Am J Epidemiol
(1989) - et al.
Reliability of questionnaire information on cardiovascular disease and diabetesCardiovascular disease study in Finmark county
J Epidemiol Commun Health
(1982) - et al.
Self-report and medical record report agreement of selected medical conditions in the elderly
Am J Public Health
(1989) - et al.
Is questionnaire information valid in the study of a chronic disease such as diabetes? The Nord-Trondelag diabetes study
J Epidemiol Commun Health
(1992)
Comparing self-reported and physician-reported medical history
Am J Epidemiol
Miilunpalo S, Pasanen M, Oja P, Vuori I. Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records of chronic diseases in middle-aged and elderly Finnish men and women
Am J Epidemiol
Validation of questionnaire information on risk factors and disease outcomes in a prospective cohort study of women
Am J Epidemiol
Accuracy of recall of hip fracture, heart attack and cancerA comparison of postal survey data and medical records
Am J Epidemiol
Validation of medical history taking as part of a population based survey in subjects aged 85 and over
Br Med J
Cited by (140)
Trends in prevalence, risk factor control and medications in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease among US Adults, 1999–2018
2024, American Journal of Preventive CardiologyParadoxical cognitive trajectories in men from earlier to later adulthood
2022, Neurobiology of AgingCitation Excerpt :Presence of hypertension was based on self-reported diagnosis of hypertension by a doctor, mean systolic blood pressure >140 mm/Hg, or mean diastolic blood pressure >90 mm/Hg across four measurements. Presence of angina was based on a positive Rose Angina score and/or use of nitroglycerin medications (Lampe et al., 1999). Presence of erectile dysfunction was based on a score of ≤25 on the International Index of Erectile Function-6 (Moore et al., 2014; Rosen et al., 1997).
The business cycle, health behavior, and chronic disease: A study over Three decades
2021, Economics and Human BiologyRelationship between major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and coronary artery disease in the US general population
2019, Journal of Psychosomatic Research