Parent-child agreement and prevalence estimates of diagnoses in childhood: direct interview versus family history method.

Diagnostic information on children is typically elicited from both children and their parents. The aims of the present paper were to: (1) compare prevalence estimates according to maternal reports, paternal reports and direct interviews of children [major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety and attention-deficit and disruptive behavioural disorders]; (2) assess mother-child, father-child and inter-parental agreement for these disorders; (3) determine the association between several child, parent and familial characteristics and the degree of diagnostic agreement or the likelihood of parental reporting; (4) determine the predictive validity of diagnostic information provided by parents and children. Analyses were based on 235 mother-offspring, 189 father-offspring and 128 mother-father pairs. Diagnostic assessment included the Kiddie-schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) (offspring) and the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) (parents and offspring at follow-up) interviews. Parental reports were collected using the Family History - Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC). Analyses revealed: (1) prevalence estimates for internalizing disorders were generally lower according to parental information than according to the K-SADS; (2) mother-child and father-child agreement was poor and within similar ranges; (3) parents with a history of MDD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) reported these disorders in their children more frequently; (4) in a sub-sample followed-up into adulthood, diagnoses of MDD, separation anxiety and conduct disorder at baseline concurred with the corresponding lifetime diagnosis at age 19 according to the child rather than according to the parents. In conclusion, our findings support large discrepancies of diagnostic information provided by parents and children with generally lower reporting of internalizing disorders by parents, and differential reporting of depression and ADHD by parental disease status. Follow-up data also supports the validity of information provided by adolescent offspring.

Disease identification based on ambulatory drugs dispensation and in-hospital ICD-10 diagnoses: a comparison.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy-based case mix measures are an alternative source of information to the relatively scarce outpatient diagnoses data. But most published tools use national drug nomenclatures and offer no head-to-head comparisons between drugs-related and diagnoses-based categories. The objective of the study was to test the accuracy of drugs-based morbidity groups derived from the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification of drugs by checking them against diagnoses-based groups. METHODS: We compared drugs-based categories with their diagnoses-based analogues using anonymous data on 108,915 individuals insured with one of four companies. They were followed throughout 2005 and 2006 and hospitalized at least once during this period. The agreement between the two approaches was measured by weighted kappa coefficients. The reproducibility of the drugs-based morbidity measure over the 2 years was assessed for all enrollees. RESULTS: Eighty percent used a drug associated with at least one of the 60 morbidity categories derived from drugs dispensation. After accounting for inpatient under-coding, fifteen conditions agreed sufficiently with their diagnoses-based counterparts to be considered alternative strategies to diagnoses. In addition, they exhibited good reproducibility and allowed prevalence estimates in accordance with national estimates. For 22 conditions, drugs-based information identified accurately a subset of the population defined by diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Most categories provide insurers with health status information that could be exploited for healthcare expenditure prediction or ambulatory cost control, especially when ambulatory diagnoses are not available. However, due to insufficient concordance with their diagnoses-based analogues, their use for morbidity indicators is limited.