BACKGROUND: Population-based surveys (self-report) and health insurance administrative data (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS]) are used to estimate chlamydia screening coverage in the United States. Estimates from these methods differ, but few studies have compared these 2 indices in the same population. METHODS: In 2010, we surveyed a random sample of women aged 18 to 25 years enrolled in a Washington State-managed care organization. Respondents were asked if they were sexually active in last year and if they tested for chlamydia in that time. We linked survey responses to administrative records of chlamydia testing and reproductive/testing services used, which comprise the HEDIS definition of the screened population and the sexually active population, respectively. We compared self-report and HEDIS using 3 outcomes: (1) sexual activity (gold standard = self-report), (2) any chlamydia screening (no gold standard), and (3) within-plan chlamydia screening (gold standard = HEDIS). RESULTS: Of 954 eligible respondents, 377 (40%) completed the survey and consented to administrative record linkage. Chlamydia screening estimates for HEDIS and self-report were 47% and 53%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HEDIS to define sexually active women were 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.6%-89.1%) and 63.5% (95% CI, 52.4%-73.7%), respectively. Forty percent of women had a chlamydia test in their administrative record, but 53% self-reported being tested for chlamydia (κ = 0.35); 19% reported out-of-plan chlamydia testing. The sensitivity of self-reported within-plan chlamydia testing was 71.3% (95% CI, 61.0%-80.1%); the specificity was 80.6% (95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set does not accurately identify sexually active women and may underestimate chlamydia testing coverage. Self-reported testing may not be an accurate measure of true chlamydial testing coverage.
BACKGROUND: Population-based surveys (self-report) and health insurance administrative data (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS]) are used to estimate chlamydia screening coverage in the United States. Estimates from these methods differ, but few studies have compared these 2 indices in the same population. METHODS: In 2010, we surveyed a random sample of women aged 18 to 25 years enrolled in a Washington State-managed care organization. Respondents were asked if they were sexually active in last year and if they tested for chlamydia in that time. We linked survey responses to administrative records of chlamydia testing and reproductive/testing services used, which comprise the HEDIS definition of the screened population and the sexually active population, respectively. We compared self-report and HEDIS using 3 outcomes: (1) sexual activity (gold standard = self-report), (2) any chlamydia screening (no gold standard), and (3) within-plan chlamydia screening (gold standard = HEDIS). RESULTS: Of 954 eligible respondents, 377 (40%) completed the survey and consented to administrative record linkage. Chlamydia screening estimates for HEDIS and self-report were 47% and 53%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HEDIS to define sexually active women were 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.6%-89.1%) and 63.5% (95% CI, 52.4%-73.7%), respectively. Forty percent of women had a chlamydia test in their administrative record, but 53% self-reported being tested for chlamydia (κ = 0.35); 19% reported out-of-plan chlamydia testing. The sensitivity of self-reported within-plan chlamydia testing was 71.3% (95% CI, 61.0%-80.1%); the specificity was 80.6% (95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set does not accurately identify sexually active women and may underestimate chlamydia testing coverage. Self-reported testing may not be an accurate measure of true chlamydial testing coverage.
Authors: Jennifer M Broad; Lisa E Manhart; Roxanne P Kerani; Delia Scholes; James P Hughes; Matthew R Golden Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Laura C Chambers; Christine M Khosropour; David A Katz; Julia C Dombrowski; Lisa E Manhart; Matthew R Golden Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Rodman Turpin; Susan Tuddenham; Xin He; Mark A Klebanoff; Khalil G Ghanem; Rebecca M Brotman Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 7.759
Authors: Barbara Van Der Pol; Stephanie N Taylor; Leandro Mena; Joel Lebed; Candice Joy McNeil; LaShonda Crane; Aaron Ermel; Adam Sukhija-Cohen; Charlotte A Gaydos Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Emily R Learner; Kimberly A Powers; Elizabeth A Torrone; Brian W Pence; Jason P Fine; William C Miller Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.830