Address inaccuracy in health registration data: determinants and impacts

Access to demographic data that are complete, accurate and up-to-date is fundamental to many aspects of public health, government and academic work and for accurate interpretation of other databases. Health registration data are the prime source of demographic information for health and social care systems; for example, as an indicator of need, as a source of denominators to convert number of events into rates, or in the case of the residential address information as the basis for generating the call-recall invitation letters that are used for most screening programs (e.g. breast, colo-rectal and AAA screening). However, list inflation (ghosts, duplicates or emigrants) and a degree of address inaccuracy are recognised caveats with the health registration data and a recent NILS-related study on breast screening suggests that improved address accuracy might be a fast and efficient means of increasing screening uptake rates in cities and amongst deprived populations. In NI these data are collated by the BSO who uniquely in the UK also have access to data relating to prescribing, dental registrations and use of A&E services. These can be used to supplement the standard demographic and address information by (i) indicating patients who are alive and resident in NI and (ii) providing an independent source of probably improved address information. This study will use the NI Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN), rather than the addresses per se which are difficult to work with, to compare the addresses registered in the BSO with those addresses in the enumerated 2011 census. Assuming that the census is a more accurate source of address information for individuals, a comparison of the health registration addresses with those recorded at the census, the aim of the proposed study will be to (i) characterise the amount and distributions of these differences, (ii) to see what proportion of those who do not attend for screening did not actually receive an invitation letter because the addresses were incorrect, (iii) to determine how much of the social gradient (and urban/rural differences) in screening uptake are due to address inaccuracies, (iv) a comparison of timing of address changes at the BSO will provide information on the delays in updating of addresses.

Low-Dose Aspirin Use After Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Does Not Increase Survival: A Case–Control Analysis of a Population-Based Cohort

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Individuals who began taking low-dose aspirin before they were diagnosed with colorectal cancer were reported to have longer survival times than patients who did not take this drug. We investigated survival times of patients who begin taking low-dose aspirin after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in a large population-based cohort study.

METHODS: We performed a nested case-control analysis using a cohort of 4794 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from 1998 through 2007, identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed by cancer registries. There were 1559 colorectal cancer-specific deaths, recorded by the Office of National Statistics; these were each matched with up to 5 risk-set controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), based on practitioner-recorded aspirin usage.

RESULTS: Overall, low-dose aspirin use after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer was not associated with colorectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24) or all-cause mortality (adjusted OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.94-1.19). A dose-response association was not apparent; for example, low-dose aspirin use for more than 1 year after diagnosis was not associated with colorectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82-1.19). There was also no association between low-dose aspirin usage and colon cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.83-1.25) or rectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.88-1.38).

CONCLUSIONS: In a large population-based cohort, low-dose aspirin usage after diagnosis of colorectal cancer did not increase survival time.