Patricia Dietz1, Jennifer Bombard2, Candace Mulready-Ward3, John Gauthier4, Judith Sackoff3, Peggy Brozicevic4, Melissa Gambatese5, Michael Nyland-Funke4, Lucinda England2, Leslie Harrison2, Sherry Farr2. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, GA ; Current affiliation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, GA. 3. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Gotham Center, Bureau of Maternal, Infant and Reproductive Health, Queens, NY. 4. Vermont Department of Health, Agency of Human Services, Burlington, VT. 5. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Vital Statistics, New York, NY.
Abstract
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 (n=603) and Vermont (n=664) 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.
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 (n=603) and Vermont (n=664) 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.
Authors: Mona T Lydon-Rochelle; Victoria L Holt; Vicky Cárdenas; Jennifer C Nelson; Thomas R Easterling; Carolyn Gardella; William M Callaghan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Joyce A Martin; Elizabeth C Wilson; Michelle J K Osterman; Elizabeth W Saadi; Shae R Sutton; Brady E Hamilton Journal: Natl Vital Stat Rep Date: 2013-07-22
Authors: Patricia Dietz; Jennifer Bombard; Candace Mulready-Ward; John Gauthier; Judith Sackoff; Peggy Brozicevic; Melissa Gambatese; Michael Nyland-Funke; Lucinda England; Leslie Harrison; Allan Taylor Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2014-12
Authors: Patrick J Roohan; Raina E Josberger; Janice Acar; Poornima Dabir; Harry M Feder; Patricia J Gagliano Journal: J Community Health Date: 2003-10
Authors: Jean Y Ko; Van T Tong; Jennifer M Bombard; Donald K Hayes; John Davy; Katherine A Perham-Hester Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Renata E Howland; Ann M Madsen; Amita Toprani; Melissa Gambatese; Candace Mulready-Ward; Elizabeth Begier Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2015-07
Authors: Elizabeth A Howell; Teresa Janevic; Paul L Hebert; Natalia N Egorova; Amy Balbierz; Jennifer Zeitlin Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Stephanie A Leonard; Lucia C Petito; Olof Stephansson; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Lisa M Bodnar; Mahasin S Mujahid; Yvonne Cheng; Barbara Abrams Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Stephanie A Leonard; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Lisa M Bodnar; Lucia C Petito; Barbara Abrams Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 3.980