Evaluating Perinatal Health in Europe: A Comparison of Routine Population Birth Data Sources

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023698%3A_____%2F25%3AN0000019" target="_blank" >RIV/00023698:_____/25:N0000019 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11120/25:43928265

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppe.13178" target="_blank" >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppe.13178</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13178" target="_blank" >10.1111/ppe.13178</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Evaluating Perinatal Health in Europe: A Comparison of Routine Population Birth Data Sources

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

BackgroundInternational comparisons of population birth data provide essential benchmarks for evaluating perinatal health policies. ObjectivesThis study aimed to describe routine national data sources in Europe by their ability to provide core perinatal health indicators. MethodsThe Euro-Peristat Network collected routine national data on a recommended set of core indicators from 2015 to 2021 using a federated protocol based on a common data model with 16 data items. Data providers completed an online questionnaire to describe the sources used in each country. We classified countries by the number of data items they provided (all 16, 15-14, < 14). ResultsA total of 29 out of the 31 countries that provided data responded to the survey. Routine data sources included birth certificates (15 countries), electronic medical records (EMR) from delivery hospitalisations (16 countries), direct entry by health providers (9 countries), EMR from other care providers (7 countries) and Hospital Discharge Summaries (7 countries). Completeness of population coverage was at least 98%, with 17 countries reporting 100%. These databases most often included mothers giving birth in the national territory, regardless of nationality or place of residence (24 countries), whereas others register births to residents only. In 20 countries, routine sources were linked, including linkage between birth and death certificates (16 countries). Countries providing all 16 items (N = 8) were more likely to use EMRs from delivery hospitalisations (100%) compared to 50% and 11% in countries with 15-14 items (N = 12) and < 14 items (N = 9), respectively. Linkage was also more common in these countries (100%) versus 75% and 56%, respectively. Other data source characteristics did not differ by the ability to provide data on core perinatal indicators. ConclusionsThere are wide differences between countries in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. Countries using EMR linking to other sources had the best data availability.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Evaluating Perinatal Health in Europe: A Comparison of Routine Population Birth Data Sources

Popis výsledku anglicky

BackgroundInternational comparisons of population birth data provide essential benchmarks for evaluating perinatal health policies. ObjectivesThis study aimed to describe routine national data sources in Europe by their ability to provide core perinatal health indicators. MethodsThe Euro-Peristat Network collected routine national data on a recommended set of core indicators from 2015 to 2021 using a federated protocol based on a common data model with 16 data items. Data providers completed an online questionnaire to describe the sources used in each country. We classified countries by the number of data items they provided (all 16, 15-14, < 14). ResultsA total of 29 out of the 31 countries that provided data responded to the survey. Routine data sources included birth certificates (15 countries), electronic medical records (EMR) from delivery hospitalisations (16 countries), direct entry by health providers (9 countries), EMR from other care providers (7 countries) and Hospital Discharge Summaries (7 countries). Completeness of population coverage was at least 98%, with 17 countries reporting 100%. These databases most often included mothers giving birth in the national territory, regardless of nationality or place of residence (24 countries), whereas others register births to residents only. In 20 countries, routine sources were linked, including linkage between birth and death certificates (16 countries). Countries providing all 16 items (N = 8) were more likely to use EMRs from delivery hospitalisations (100%) compared to 50% and 11% in countries with 15-14 items (N = 12) and < 14 items (N = 9), respectively. Linkage was also more common in these countries (100%) versus 75% and 56%, respectively. Other data source characteristics did not differ by the ability to provide data on core perinatal indicators. ConclusionsThere are wide differences between countries in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. Countries using EMR linking to other sources had the best data availability.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30214 - Obstetrics and gynaecology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

ISSN

0269-5022

e-ISSN

1365-3016

Svazek periodika

39

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

5

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

405-416

Kód UT WoS článku

001441724400001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105000827472