Patrick S Calhoun1,2,3,4, Sarah M Wilson5,6,7, Jeffrey S Hertzberg6,7, Angela C Kirby5,6,7, Scott D McDonald5,8, Paul A Dennis6,7, Lori A Bastian9, Eric A Dedert6,7, Jean C Beckham5,6,7. 1. VA Mid-Atlantic Region Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. patrick.calhoun2@va.gov. 2. Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. patrick.calhoun2@va.gov. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. patrick.calhoun2@va.gov. 4. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. patrick.calhoun2@va.gov. 5. VA Mid-Atlantic Region Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 8. Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA, USA. 9. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research using the Veterans Health Administration (VA) electronic medical records (EMR) has been limited by a lack of reliable smoking data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of using VA EMR "Health Factors" data to determine smoking status among veterans with recent military service. DESIGN: Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC), and kappa statistics were used to evaluate concordance between VA EMR smoking status and criterion smoking status. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans (N = 2025) with service during the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan who participated in the VA Mid-Atlantic Post-Deployment Mental Health (PDMH) Study. MAIN MEASURES: Criterion smoking status was based on self-report during a confidential study visit. VA EMR smoking status was measured by coding health factors data entries (populated during automated clinical reminders) in three ways: based on the most common health factor, the most recent health factor, and the health factor within 12 months of the criterion smoking status data collection date. KEY RESULTS: Concordance with PDMH smoking status (current, former, never) was highest when determined by the most commonly observed VA EMR health factor (κ = 0.69) and was not significantly impacted by psychiatric status. Agreement was higher when smoking status was dichotomized: current vs. not current (κ = 0.73; sensitivity = 0.84; specificity = 0.91; AUC = 0.87); ever vs. never (κ = 0.75; sensitivity = 0.85; specificity = 0.90; AUC = 0.87). There were substantial missing Health Factors data when restricting analyses to a 12-month period from the criterion smoking status date. Current smokers had significantly more Health Factors entries compared to never or former smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The use of computerized tobacco screening data to determine smoking status is valid and feasible. Results indicating that smokers have significantly more health factors entries than non-smokers suggest that caution is warranted when using the EMR to select cases for cohort studies as the risk for selection bias appears high.
BACKGROUND: Research using the Veterans Health Administration (VA) electronic medical records (EMR) has been limited by a lack of reliable smoking data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of using VA EMR "Health Factors" data to determine smoking status among veterans with recent military service. DESIGN: Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC), and kappa statistics were used to evaluate concordance between VA EMR smoking status and criterion smoking status. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans (N = 2025) with service during the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan who participated in the VA Mid-Atlantic Post-Deployment Mental Health (PDMH) Study. MAIN MEASURES: Criterion smoking status was based on self-report during a confidential study visit. VA EMR smoking status was measured by coding health factors data entries (populated during automated clinical reminders) in three ways: based on the most common health factor, the most recent health factor, and the health factor within 12 months of the criterion smoking status data collection date. KEY RESULTS: Concordance with PDMH smoking status (current, former, never) was highest when determined by the most commonly observed VA EMR health factor (κ = 0.69) and was not significantly impacted by psychiatric status. Agreement was higher when smoking status was dichotomized: current vs. not current (κ = 0.73; sensitivity = 0.84; specificity = 0.91; AUC = 0.87); ever vs. never (κ = 0.75; sensitivity = 0.85; specificity = 0.90; AUC = 0.87). There were substantial missing Health Factors data when restricting analyses to a 12-month period from the criterion smoking status date. Current smokers had significantly more Health Factors entries compared to never or former smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The use of computerized tobacco screening data to determine smoking status is valid and feasible. Results indicating that smokers have significantly more health factors entries than non-smokers suggest that caution is warranted when using the EMR to select cases for cohort studies as the risk for selection bias appears high.
Authors: Besa Smith; Margaret A K Ryan; Deborah L Wingard; Thomas L Patterson; Donald J Slymen; Caroline A Macera Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Mira Brancu; H Ryan Wagner; Rajendra A Morey; Jean C Beckham; Patrick S Calhoun; Larry A Tupler; Christine E Marx; Katherine H Taber; Robin A Hurley; Jared Rowland; Scott D McDonald; Jeffrey M Hoerle; Scott D Moore; Harold S Kudler; Richard D Weiner; John A Fairbank Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Emily L Gentes; Paul A Dennis; Nathan A Kimbrel; Michelle B Rissling; Jean C Beckham; Patrick S Calhoun Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Nikhil Patel; David P Miller; Anna C Snavely; Christina Bellinger; Kristie L Foley; Doug Case; Malcolm L McDonald; Youssef R Masmoudi; Ajay Dharod Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David Ying; Milena A Gianfrancesco; Laura Trupin; Jinoos Yazdany; Eric L Greidinger; Gabriela Schmajuk Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Binu V John; Bassam Dahman; Yangyang Deng; Nidah S Khakoo; Tamar H Taddei; David E Kaplan; Cynthia Levy Journal: Liver Int Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Natalie B Riblet; Daniel J Gottlieb; Bradley V Watts; Sarah L Cornelius; Vincent S Fan; Xun Shi; Brian Shiner Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2019-01-12 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Jaimee L Heffner; Scott Coggeshall; Chelle L Wheat; Paul Krebs; Laura C Feemster; Deborah E Klein; Linda Nici; Hannah Johnson; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Binu V John; Nidah S Khakoo; Kaley B Schwartz; Gabriella Aitchenson; Cynthia Levy; Bassam Dahman; Yangyang Deng; David S Goldberg; Paul Martin; David E Kaplan; Tamar H Taddei Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Binu V John; Kaley Schwartz; Andrew R Scheinberg; Bassam Dahman; Seth Spector; Yangyang Deng; David Goldberg; Paul Martin; Tamar H Taddei; David E Kaplan Journal: Transplantation Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 5.385
Authors: Maria R Khan; Kaoon Ban; Ellen C Caniglia; Jennifer E Edelman; Julie Gaither; Stephen Crystal; Natalie E Chichetto; Kailyn E Young; Janet Tate; Amy C Justice; R Scott Braithwaite Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2021-07-06
Authors: Javad Razjouyan; Drew A Helmer; Kristine E Lynch; Nicola A Hanania; Paul E Klotman; Amir Sharafkhaneh; Christopher I Amos Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 4.244