Rebecca E Ghosh1, Danielle C Ashworth1, Anna L Hansell2, Kevin Garwood1, Paul Elliott2, Mireille B Toledano1. 1. UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit, MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 2. UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit, MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In England there are four national routinely collected data sets on births: Office for National Statistics (ONS) births based on birth registrations; Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) deliveries (mothers' information); HES births (babies' information); and NHS Numbers for Babies (NN4B) based on ONS births plus gestational age and ethnicity information. This study describes and compares these data, with the aim of recommending the most appropriate data set(s) for use in epidemiological research and surveillance. METHODS: We assessed the completeness and quality of the data sets in relation to use in epidemiological research and surveillance and produced detailed descriptive statistics on common reproductive outcomes for each data set including temporal and spatial trends. RESULTS: ONS births is a high quality complete data set but lacks interpretive and clinical information. HES deliveries showed good agreement with ONS births but HES births showed larger amounts of missing or unavailable data. Both HES data sets had improved quality from 2003 onwards, but showed some local spatial variability. NN4B showed excellent agreement with ONS and HES deliveries for the years available (2006-2010). Annual number of births increased by 17.6% comparing 2002 with 2010 (ONS births). Approximately 6% of births were of low birth weight (2.6% term low birth weight) and 0.5% were stillbirths. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected data on births provide a valuable resource for researchers. ONS and NN4B offer the most complete and accurate record of births. Where more detailed clinical information is required, HES deliveries offers a high quality data set that captures the majority of English births. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: In England there are four national routinely collected data sets on births: Office for National Statistics (ONS) births based on birth registrations; Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) deliveries (mothers' information); HES births (babies' information); and NHS Numbers for Babies (NN4B) based on ONS births plus gestational age and ethnicity information. This study describes and compares these data, with the aim of recommending the most appropriate data set(s) for use in epidemiological research and surveillance. METHODS: We assessed the completeness and quality of the data sets in relation to use in epidemiological research and surveillance and produced detailed descriptive statistics on common reproductive outcomes for each data set including temporal and spatial trends. RESULTS: ONS births is a high quality complete data set but lacks interpretive and clinical information. HES deliveries showed good agreement with ONS births but HES births showed larger amounts of missing or unavailable data. Both HES data sets had improved quality from 2003 onwards, but showed some local spatial variability. NN4B showed excellent agreement with ONS and HES deliveries for the years available (2006-2010). Annual number of births increased by 17.6% comparing 2002 with 2010 (ONS births). Approximately 6% of births were of low birth weight (2.6% term low birth weight) and 0.5% were stillbirths. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected data on births provide a valuable resource for researchers. ONS and NN4B offer the most complete and accurate record of births. Where more detailed clinical information is required, HES deliveries offers a high quality data set that captures the majority of English births. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Data Collection; Epidemiology; Statistics
Authors: Raoul C Reulen; Chloe J Bright; David L Winter; Miranda M Fidler; Kwok Wong; Joyeeta Guha; Julie S Kelly; Clare Frobisher; Angela B Edgar; Roderick Skinner; W Hamish B Wallace; Mike M Hawkins Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rebecca Elisabeth Ghosh; Jacob Dag Berild; Anna Freni Sterrantino; Mireille B Toledano; Anna L Hansell Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Hannah E Knight; David A Cromwell; Ipek Gurol-Urganci; Katie Harron; Jan H van der Meulen; Gordon C S Smith Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Peter Martin; Mario Cortina-Borja; Mary Newburn; Gill Harper; Rod Gibson; Miranda Dodwell; Nirupa Dattani; Alison Macfarlane Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Frédéric B Piel; Daniela Fecht; Susan Hodgson; Marta Blangiardo; M Toledano; A L Hansell; Paul Elliott Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 7.196