Literature DB >> 7880750

Why are a quarter of all cancer deaths in south-east England registered by death certificate only? Factors related to death certificate only registrations in the Thames Cancer Registry between 1987 and 1989.

A M Pollock1, N Vickers.   

Abstract

This paper describes the results of a study set up to investigate factors associated with the high proportions of 'death certificate only' registrations (DCOs) for all cancers registered in south-east England between 1987 and 1989 and to identify those which might be subject to registry intervention. DCOs as a proportion of all registrations (n = 162,131) were analysed by age, sex, district of residence, place of death and survival. DCO registration ratios (standardised for age and sex) were then derived for each of the 56 districts in the Thames Regions. A multiple logistic regression model was generated to estimate the effect of age at diagnosis, tumour survival and patient sex on final source of registration. To minimise the number of dummy variables needed, each of the 56 districts was ranked into quartiles: quartile 1 contained the 14 districts with the lowest age- and sex-standardised ratios for DCO registrations and quartile 4 comprised the 14 districts with the highest DCO ratios. Final source of registration was treated as a binomial trial (case notes or death certificates). The significance of associations was measured using the deviance difference as an approximate chi-square statistic. The effect of each variable on source of registration was estimated as an odds ratio. Interaction terms were also fitted. To estimate the effect of place of death on DCO registrations, a second model was generated for deceased patients only (n = 98,455, adding 'place of death' to the list of explanatory variables already used. A further interaction term was fitted to account for interaction between place of death and district quartile of residence. Around 24% of all patient deaths were registered as DCOs by the Thames Cancer Registry between 1987 and 1989. Of these, 40.9% died in an acute NHS hospital setting, 37.1% died at home, 10.4% died in hospices and 3.4% died in non-NHS hospitals. Increasing age, decreasing survival, district of residence and place of death were positively associated with death certificate registrations. The district effect was sustained in the regression model with significant positive associations shown for DHA quartile of residence. In the deceased group of patients, both district of residence and place of death were independent predictors of DCOs. Death occurring outside the acute NHS hospital setting increased the odds of being a DCO within and across district quartiles. DCOs could be reduced by better case ascertainment in some districts.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7880750      PMCID: PMC2033657          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1995.125

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  5 in total

1.  Use of cancer surveillance data for comparative analyses.

Authors:  S Wilson; P Prior; C B Woodman
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1992-06

2.  Death certificate reporting of colon and rectal cancers.

Authors:  W H Chow; S S Devesa
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-06-10       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Regional differences in survival from cancer.

Authors:  A J Silman; S J Evans
Journal:  Community Med       Date:  1981-11

4.  Incompleteness and retrieval of case notes in a case note audit of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  N Vickers; A Pollock
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1993-09

5.  Accuracy of cancer death certificates and its effect on cancer mortality statistics.

Authors:  C Percy; E Stanek; L Gloeckler
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 9.308

  5 in total
  9 in total

1.  Preprinted assessment sheet.

Authors:  K M Srivatsa
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1996-06

2.  Medication errors during hospital drug rounds.

Authors:  M Wilcock
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1996-06

3.  The reliability of cancer registry records.

Authors:  M Gulliford
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1996-06

4.  Concordance on the recording of cancer in the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency Registry, hospital charts and death registrations.

Authors:  N S Rawson; D L Robson
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct

5.  The epidemiology and survival of extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma in South East England, 1970-2004.

Authors:  Yien Ning S Wong; Ruth H Jack; Vivian Mak; Møller Henrik; Elizabeth A Davies
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Reducing DCO registrations through electronic matching of cancer registry data and routine hospital data.

Authors:  A M Pollock; N Vickers
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Prognostic factors and survival of colorectal cancer in Kurdistan province, Iran: A population-based study (2009-2014).

Authors:  Mohammad Aziz Rasouli; Ghobad Moradi; Daem Roshani; Bahram Nikkhoo; Ebrahim Ghaderi; Bahman Ghaytasi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  Survival from breast cancer among South Asian and non-South Asian women resident in South East England.

Authors:  I dos Santos Silva; P Mangtani; B L De Stavola; J Bell; M Quinn; D Mayer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-08-04       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Age-specific cancer survival in Estonia: recent trends and data quality.

Authors:  Kaire Innos; Katrin Lang; Kersti Pärna; Tiiu Aareleid
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 4.790

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.