The quality of indigenous identification in administrative health data in Australia: insights from studies using data linkage.

Sandra C Thompson,Judith M Katzenellenbogen,John A Woods

doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-133

Sandra C Thompson, Judith M Katzenellenbogen + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-133

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundMissing or incorrect Indigenous status in health records hinders monitoring of Indigenous health indicators. Linkage of administrative data has been used to improve the ascertainment of Indigenous status. Data linkage was pioneered in Western Australia (WA) and is now being used in other Australian states. This systematic review appraises peer-reviewed Australian studies that used data linkage to elucidate the impact of under-ascertainment of Indigenous status on health indicators.MethodsA PubMed search identified eligible studies that used Australian linked data to interrogate Indigenous identification using more than one identifier and interrogated the impact of the different identifiers on estimation of Indigenous health indicators.ResultsEight papers were included, five from WA and three from New South Wales (NSW). The WA papers included a self-identified Indigenous community cohort and showed improved identification in hospital separation data after 2000. In CVD hospitalised patients (2000–05), under-identification was greater in urban residents, older people and socially more advantaged Indigenous people, with varying algorithms giving different estimates of under-count. Age-standardised myocardial infarction incidence rates (2000–2004) increased by about 10%-15% with improved identification. Under-ascertainment of Indigenous identification overestimated secular improvements in life expectancy and mortality whereas correcting infectious disease notifications resulted in lower Indigenous/ non-Indigenous rate ratios. NSW has a history of poor Indigenous identification in administrative data systems, but the NSW papers confirmed the usefulness of data linkage for improving Indigenous identification and the potential for very different estimates of Indigenous disease indicators depending upon the algorithm used for identification.ConclusionsUnder-identification of Indigenous status must be addressed in health analyses concerning Indigenous health differentials – they cannot be ignored or wished away. This problem can be substantially diminished through data linkage. Under-identification of Indigenous status impacts differently in different disease contexts, generally resulting in under-estimation of absolute and relative Indigenous health indicators, but may perversely overestimate Indigenous rates and differentials in the setting of stigma-associated conditions such as sexually-transmitted and blood-borne virus infections. Under-numeration in Census surveys also needs consideration to address the added problem of denominator undercounts.

Highlights

Missing or incorrect Indigenous status in health records hinders monitoring of Indigenous health indicators
While there were many papers reporting analysis of linked data that reported Indigenous indicators, most were either silent on the exact nature of the data used for Indigenous status or reported the use of only one identifier for Indigenous identification
This was based on the identifier recorded during an index admission, or on the subject having been ever-identified as Indigenous in a record in any dataset

Summary

Introduction

Missing or incorrect Indigenous status in health records hinders monitoring of Indigenous health indicators. Linkage of administrative data has been used to improve the ascertainment of Indigenous status. This systematic review appraises peer-reviewed Australian studies that used data linkage to elucidate the impact of under-ascertainment of Indigenous status on health indicators. Importance of health data for monitoring the health of the population and vulnerable groups Health-related epidemiological and statistical information provides the basis for evidence and health policy. Evaluating policies, programs and services Determining whether funding is adequate, distributed equitably, and used effectively and efficiently Facilitating administrative accountability Aiding advocacy efforts Raising community awareness Supporting high quality public health research. Are definitions contested, the recording of Indigenous status in marginalised groups is complex and known to be poor in the administrative health data of many jurisdictions. Indigenous health information was recognised as an Australian health priority in the 1995 National Health Information Development Plan [2] which, after an Australia-wide consultation, led to the development of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Information Plan [3]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion