A population based validation study of self-reported pensions and benefits: the Nord-Trøndelag health study (HUNT)

BMC Research Notes

Arnstein Mykletun³  Steinar Krokstad⁴  Ingvard Wilhelmsen¹  Anja M S Ariansen⁵  Solbjørg Makalani Myrtveit² 

[1] Department of Medicine, Haraldsplass Deaconal Hospital, Bergen, Norway;Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Mental Health, Department of Public Mental Health, Bergen, Norway;University of New South Wales, School of Psychiatry, Sydney, Australia;HUNT Research Centre, Department of Public Health and General Practice, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway;Faculty of social sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

关键词: Non-responders;    Epidemiology;    Bias;    Validity;   

Others  :  1144928
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-6-27

 received in 2012-06-08, accepted in 2013-01-17,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Measures of disability pensions, sickness certification and long-term health related benefits are often self-reported in epidemiological studies. Few studies have examined these measures, and the validity is yet to be established.

We aimed to estimate the validity of self-reported disability pension, rehabilitation benefit and retirement pension and to explore the benefit status and basic characteristics of those not responding to these items.

A large health survey (HUNT2) containing self-reported questionnaire data on sickness benefits and pensions was linked to a national registry of pensions and benefits, used as “gold standard” for the analysis. We investigated two main sources of bias in self-reported data; misclassification - due to participants answering questions incorrectly, and systematic missing/selection bias - when participants do not respond to the questions.

Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predicative value, agreement and Cohen’s Kappa were calculated for each benefit. Co-variables were compared between non-responders and responders.

Results

In the study-population of 40,633, 9.2% reported receiving disability pension, 1.4% rehabilitation benefits and 6.1% retirement pension. According to the registry, the corresponding numbers were 9.0%, 1.7% and 5.4%. Excluding non-responders, specificity, NPV and agreement were above 98% for all benefits. Sensitivity and PPV were lower. When including non-responders as non-receivers, specificity got higher, sensitivity dropped while the other measures changed less.

Between 17.7% and 24.1% did not answer the questions on benefits. Non-responders were older and more likely to be female. They reported more anxiety, more depression, a higher number of somatic diagnoses, less physical activity and lower consumption of alcohol (p < 0.001 for all variables). For disability pension and retirement pension, non-responders were less likely to receive benefits than responders (p < 0.001). For each benefit 2.1% or less of non-responders were receivers. False positive responses were more prevalent than false negative responses.

Conclusions

The validity of self-reported data on disability pension, rehabilitation benefits and retirement pension is high – it seems that participants’ responses can be trusted. Compared to responders, non-responders are less likely to be receivers. If necessary, power and validity can be kept high by imputing non-responders as non-receivers.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Myrtveit et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J: Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58:635-641.
• [2]Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL: Validity in Epidemiologic Studies. Wolters Kluver Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia; 1998:128-147. [Modern epidemiology]
• [3]Bhandari A, Wagner T: Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy. Med Care Res Rev 2006, 63:217-235.
• [4]West S, SB L, Poole C: Validity of pharmacoepidemiologic drug and diagnosis data. In Pharmacoepidemiology. Edited by SB L. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, West Sussex; 2005:709-766.
• [5]Brener ND, Billy JOG, Grady WR: Assessment of factors affecting the validity of self-reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: evidence from the scientific literature. J Adolesc Health 2003, 33:436-457.
• [6]Tourangeau R, Smith TW: Asking sensitive questions the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q 1996, 60:275-304.
• [7]Mabe PA, West SG: Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 1982, 67:280.
• [8]Moorman RH, Podsakoff PM: A metaanalytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. J Occup Organ Psychol 2011, 65:131-149.
• [9]Donaldson SI, Grant-Vallone EJ: Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. J Bus Psychol 2002, 17:245-260.
• [10]Hebert JR, Clemow L, Pbert L, Ockene IS, Ockene JK: Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. Int J Epidemiol 1995, 24:389-398.
• [11]Voss M, Stark S, Alfredsson L, Vingård E, Josephson M: Comparison of self-reported and register data on sickness absence among public employees in Sweden. Occup Environ Med 2008, 65:61-67.
• [12]van Poppel MNM, de Vet HCW, Koes BW, Smid T, Bouter LM: Measuring sick leave: a comparison of self-reported data on sick leave and data from company records. Occup Med 2002, 52:485-490.
• [13]Short ME, Goetzel RZ, Pei X, Tabrizi MJ, Ozminkowski RJ, Gibson TB, Dejoy DM, Wilson MG: How accurate are self-reports? Analysis of self-reported helath care utilization and absence when compared with administrative data. J Occup Environ Med 2009, 51:786-796.
• [14]Laestadius JG, Ye J, Dimberg L: Can we trust the answers? Reliability and validity of self-reported sick leave due to musculoskepletal symptoms. J Occup Environ Med 2008, 50:611-612.
• [15]Øyeflaten I, Lie SA, Ihlebæk C, Brage S, Eriksen HR: Comparison of self-reported and register data on sickness absence among Norwegian patients participating in an occupational rehabilitation program. Norwegian Journal of Epidemiology 2009, 19:161-167.
• [16]Fredriksson K, Toomingas A, Torgen M, Thorbjornsson CB, Kilbom A: Validity and reliability of self-reported retrospectively cellected data on sick leave related to musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health 1998, 24:425-431.
• [17]Ferrie JE, Kivimaki M, Head J, Shipley M, Vahtera J, Marmot MG: A comparison of self-reported sickness absence with absences recorded in employers’ registers: evidence from the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 2005, 62:74-79.
• [18]Burdorf A, Post W, Bruggeling T: Reliability of a questionnaire on sickness absence with specific attention to absence due to back pain and respiratory complaints. Occup Environ Med 1996, 53:58-62.
• [19]Pole JD, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Vidmar M, Krause N: Duration of work disability: a comparison of self-report and administrative data. Am J Ind Med 2006, 49:394-401.
• [20]Agius RM, Lloyd MH, Campbell S, Hutchison P, Seaton A, Soutar CA: Questionnaire for the identification of back pain for epidemiological purposes. Occup Environ Med 1994, 51:756-760.
• [21]Sveberg P, Ropponen A, Lichtenstein P, Alexanderson K: Are self-report of disability pension and long-term sickness absence accurate? Comparison of self-reported interview data with national register data in Swedish twin cohort. BMC Publ Health 2010, 10:763. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Hartz I, Tverdal A, Skurtveit S: A comparison of self-reported data on disability pension status with data from nationwide administrative register. Norwegian Journal of Epidemiology 2009, 19:169-172.
• [23]Mykletun A, Bjerkeset O, Overland S, Prince M, Dewey M, Stewart R: Levels of anxiety and depression as predictors of mortality: the HUNT study. Br J Psychiatry 2009, 195:118-125.
• [24]Krokstad S, Westin S: Disability in society–medical and non-medical determinants for disability pension in a Norwegian total county population study. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58:1837-1848.
• [25]Østby KA, Ørstavik RE, Knudsen AK, Reichborn-Kjennerud T, Mykletun A: Health problems account for a small part of the association between socioeconomic status and disability pension award. Results from the Hordaland Health Study. BMC Publ Health 2011, 11:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Haukenes I, Mykletun A, Knudsen AK, Hansen HT, Mæland JG: Disability pension by occupational class-the impact of work-related factors: The Hordaland Health Study Cohort. BMC Publ Health 2011, 11:406. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service (NAV): December 5th 2012. Disability pension Web-page. 2012. http://www.nav.no/English/English/Uførepensjon.284220.cms webcite
• [28]Kjønstad A: Folketrygdsytelser i omstillingsperioder. In Innføring i trygderett. Tano Aschehoug AS, Otta; 1998:66-104.
• [29]Retirement pension, web-page. 2012. http://www.nav.no/Pensjon/Alderspensjon/Fakta+om/_attachment/269922?_ts=1398c1447d webcite
• [30]Zigmond A, Snaith R: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983, 67:361-370.
• [31]Herrmann C: International experiences with the hospital anxiety and depression scale - A review of validation data and clinical results. J Psychosom Res 1997, 42:17-41.
• [32]Bjelland I, Dahl A, Haug T, Neckelmann D: The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res 2002, 52:69-77.
• [33]Olsson I, Mykletun A, Dahl A: The hospital anxiety and depression rating scale: a cross-sectional study of psychometrics and case finding abilities in general practice. BMC Psychiatry 2005, 5:46-46. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Haug TT, Mykletun A, Dahl AA: The association between anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms in a large population: The HUNT-II study. Psychosom Med 2004, 66:845-851.
• [35]Skogen JC, Harvey S, Henderson M, Stordal E, Mykletun A: Anxiety and depression among abstainers and low-level alcohol consumers.The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Addiction 2009, 104:1519-1529.
• [36]Harvey SB, Hotopf M, Overland S, Mykletun A: Physical activity and common mental disorders. Br J Psychiatry 2010, 197:357-364.
• [37]Hensing G: Chapter 4. Methodological aspects in sickness-absence research. Scand J Public Health 2004, 32:44-48.
• [38]Langhammer A, Krokstad S, Romundstad P, Heggland J, Holmen J: The HUNT study: participation is associated with survival and depends on socioeconomic status, diseases and symptoms. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12:143. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Knudsen AK, Hotopf M, Skogen JC, Øverland S, Mykletun A: The health status of nonparticipants in a population-based health study the Hordaland Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 2010, 172:1306-1314.
• [40]Prince M, Stewart R, Ford T, Hotopf M: Meausurement in psychiatry. Oxford University Press Inc, New York; 2003:155-175. [Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology]
• [41]Knudsen AK, Mykletun A: Rapport 2009:4 Tapte arbeidsår ved uførepensjonering for psykiske lidelser [Report 2009:4 Working years lost due to disability pensioning for mental disorders]. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt; 2009. [Book Rapport 2009:4 Tapte arbeidsår ved uførepensjonering for psykiske lidelser [Report 2009:4 Working years lost due to disability pensioning for mental disorders]
• [42]Hoeymans N, Feskens EJM, Van Den Bos GAM, Kromhout D: Non-response bias in a study of cardiovascular diseases, functional status and self-rated health among elderly men. Age Ageing 1998, 27:35-40.