» Articles » PMID: 33931025

Data Quality Assessment and Subsampling Strategies to Correct Distributional Bias in Prevalence Studies

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2021 May 1
PMID 33931025
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) represent a major Public Health issue. Hospital-based prevalence studies are a common tool of HAI surveillance, but data quality problems and non-representativeness can undermine their reliability.

Methods: This study proposes three algorithms that, given a convenience sample and variables relevant for the outcome of the study, select a subsample with specific distributional characteristics, boosting either representativeness (Probability and Distance procedures) or risk factors' balance (Uniformity procedure). A "Quality Score" (QS) was also developed to grade sampled units according to data completeness and reliability. The methodologies were evaluated through bootstrapping on a convenience sample of 135 hospitals collected during the 2016 Italian Point Prevalence Survey (PPS) on HAIs.

Results: The QS highlighted wide variations in data quality among hospitals (median QS 52.9 points, range 7.98-628, lower meaning better quality), with most problems ascribable to ward and hospital-related data reporting. Both Distance and Probability procedures produced subsamples with lower distributional bias (Log-likelihood score increased from 7.3 to 29 points). The Uniformity procedure increased the homogeneity of the sample characteristics (e.g., - 58.4% in geographical variability). The procedures selected hospitals with higher data quality, especially the Probability procedure (lower QS in 100% of bootstrap simulations). The Distance procedure produced lower HAI prevalence estimates (6.98% compared to 7.44% in the convenience sample), more in line with the European median.

Conclusions: The QS and the subsampling procedures proposed in this study could represent effective tools to improve the quality of prevalence studies, decreasing the biases that can arise due to non-probabilistic sample collection.

Citing Articles

Impact of hospital-related indicators on healthcare-associated infections and appropriateness of antimicrobial use according to a national dataset.

Garlasco J, DAmbrosio A, Vicentini C, Quattrocolo F, Zotti C Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):31259.

PMID: 39732902 PMC: 11682244. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-82663-6.

References
1.
Bonander C, Nilsson A, Bjork J, Bergstrom G, Stromberg U . Participation weighting based on sociodemographic register data improved external validity in a population-based cohort study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 108:54-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.011. View

2.
Moro M, Marchi M, Buttazzi R, Nascetti S . Progress in infection prevention and control in Italy: a nationwide survey. J Hosp Infect. 2010; 77(1):52-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.08.009. View

3.
Bull C, Byrnes J, Hettiarachchi R, Downes M . A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures. Health Serv Res. 2019; 54(5):1023-1035. PMC: 6736915. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13187. View

4.
Greenland S . Ecologic versus individual-level sources of bias in ecologic estimates of contextual health effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 30(6):1343-50. DOI: 10.1093/ije/30.6.1343. View

5.
Bornstein M, Jager J, Putnick D . Sampling in Developmental Science: Situations, Shortcomings, Solutions, and Standards. Dev Rev. 2015; 33(4):357-370. PMC: 4286359. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003. View