Dataset Information

Accuracy of Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccination Status Compared With a Public Health Vaccination Registry in Quebec: Observational Diagnostic Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The accuracy of self-reported vaccination status is important to guide real-world vaccine effectiveness studies and policy making in jurisdictions where access to electronic vaccine registries is restricted.

Objective

This study aimed to determine the accuracy of self-reported vaccination status and reliability of the self-reported number of doses, brand, and time of vaccine administration.

Methods

This diagnostic accuracy study was completed by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network. We enrolled consecutive patients presenting to 4 emergency departments (EDs) in Québec between March 24, 2020, and December 25, 2021. We included adult patients who were able to consent, could speak English or French, and had a proven COVID-19 infection. We compared the self-reported vaccination status of the patients with their vaccination status in the electronic Québec Vaccination Registry. Our primary outcome was the accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status (index test) ascertained during telephone follow-up compared with the Québec Vaccination Registry (reference standard). The accuracy was calculated by dividing all correctly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants by the sum of all correctly and incorrectly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. We also reported interrater agreement with the reference standard as measured by unweighted Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at telephone follow-up and at the time of their index ED visit, number of vaccine doses, and brand.

Results

During the study period, we included 1361 participants. At the time of the follow-up interview, 932 participants reported at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status was 96% (95% CI 95%-97%). Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at phone follow-up was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.93) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) at the time of their index ED visit. Cohen κ was 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.91) for the number of doses, 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for the brand of the first dose, 0.76 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) for the brand of the second dose, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.34-0.83) for the brand of the third dose.

Conclusions

We reported a high accuracy of self-reported vaccination status for adult patients without cognitive disorders who can express themselves in English or French. Researchers can use self-reported COVID-19 vaccination data on the number of doses received, vaccine brand name, and timing of vaccination to guide future research with patients who are capable of self-reporting their vaccination data. However, access to official electronic vaccine registries is still needed to determine the vaccination status in certain susceptible populations where self-reported vaccination data remain missing or impossible to obtain.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04702945; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04702945.

SUBMITTER: Archambault PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10278735 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccination Status Compared With a Public Health Vaccination Registry in Québec: Observational Diagnostic Study.

Archambault Patrick M PM Rosychuk Rhonda J RJ Audet Martyne M Bola Rajan R Vatanpour Shabnam S Brooks Steven C SC Daoust Raoul R Clark Gregory G Grant Lars L Vaillancourt Samuel S Welsford Michelle M Morrison Laurie J LJ Hohl Corinne M CM

JMIR public health and surveillance 20230616

<h4>Background</h4>The accuracy of self-reported vaccination status is important to guide real-world vaccine effectiveness studies and policy making in jurisdictions where access to electronic vaccine registries is restricted.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to determine the accuracy of self-reported vaccination status and reliability of the self-reported number of doses, brand, and time of vaccine administration.<h4>Methods</h4>This diagnostic accuracy study was completed by the Canadian COVI ...[more]

PMID: 37327046

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionStatus epilepticus (SE) is a common life-threatening neurological emergency that can cause long-term impairments. Overall outcomes remain poor. Major efforts are required to clarify the epidemiology of SE and the determinants of outcomes, thereby identifying targets for improved management.Methods and analysisICTAL Registry is a multicentre open cohort of critically ill patients with convulsive, non-convulsive or psychogenic non-epileptic SE. Observational methods are applied to collect uniform data. The goal of the ICTAL Registry is to collect high-quality information on a large number of patients, thereby allowing elucidation of the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in mortality and morbidity. The registry structure is modular, with a large core data set and the opportunity for research teams to create satellite data sets for observational or interventional studies (eg, cohort multiple randomised controlled trials, cross-sectional studies and short-term and long-term longitudinal outcome studies). The availability of core data will hasten patient recruitment to studies, while also decreasing costs. Importantly, the vast amount of data from a large number of patients will allow valid subgroup analyses, which are expected to identify patient populations requiring specific treatment strategies. The results of the studies will have a broad spectrum of application, particularly given the multidisciplinary approach used by the IctalGroup research network.Ethics and disseminationThe ICTAL Registry protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the French Intensive Care Society (#CE_SRLF 19-68 and 19-68a). Patients or their relatives/proxies received written information to the use of the retrospectively collected and pseudonymised data, in compliance with French law. Prospectively included patients receive written consent form as soon as they recover decision-making competency; if they refuse consent, they are excluded from the registry. Data from the registry will be disseminated via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT03457831.

Project description:BackgroundResearch has shown a modest adherence of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in glaucoma to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD). We have applied the updated 30-item STARD 2015 checklist to a set of studies included in a Cochrane DTA systematic review of imaging tools for diagnosing manifest glaucoma.MethodsThree pairs of reviewers, including one senior reviewer who assessed all studies, independently checked the adherence of each study to STARD 2015. Adherence was analyzed on an individual-item basis. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of publication year and impact factor on adherence.ResultsWe included 106 DTA studies, published between 2003-2014 in journals with a median impact factor of 2.6. Overall adherence was 54.1% for 3,286 individual rating across 31 items, with a mean of 16.8 (SD: 3.1; range 8-23) items per study. Large variability in adherence to reporting standards was detected across individual STARD 2015 items, ranging from 0 to 100%. Nine items (1: identification as diagnostic accuracy study in title/abstract; 6: eligibility criteria; 10: index test (a) and reference standard (b) definition; 12: cut-off definitions for index test (a) and reference standard (b); 14: estimation of diagnostic accuracy measures; 21a: severity spectrum of diseased; 23: cross-tabulation of the index and reference standard results) were adequately reported in more than 90% of the studies. Conversely, 10 items (3: scientific and clinical background of the index test; 11: rationale for the reference standard; 13b: blinding of index test results; 17: analyses of variability; 18; sample size calculation; 19: study flow diagram; 20: baseline characteristics of participants; 28: registration number and registry; 29: availability of study protocol; 30: sources of funding) were adequately reported in less than 30% of the studies. Only four items showed a statistically significant improvement over time: missing data (16), baseline characteristics of participants (20), estimates of diagnostic accuracy (24) and sources of funding (30).ConclusionsAdherence to STARD 2015 among DTA studies in glaucoma research is incomplete, and only modestly increasing over time.