↓ Skip to main content

Development of an algorithm for determining smoking status and behaviour over the life course from UK electronic primary care records

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of an algorithm for determining smoking status and behaviour over the life course from UK electronic primary care records
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0400-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark D. Atkinson, Jonathan I. Kennedy, Ann John, Keir E. Lewis, Ronan A. Lyons, Sinead T. Brophy

Abstract

Patients' smoking status is routinely collected by General Practitioners (GP) in UK primary health care. There is an abundance of Read codes pertaining to smoking, including those relating to smoking cessation therapy, prescription, and administration codes, in addition to the more regularly employed smoking status codes. Large databases of primary care data are increasingly used for epidemiological analysis; smoking status is an important covariate in many such analyses. However, the variable definition is rarely documented in the literature. The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank is a repository for a national collection of person-based anonymised health and socio-economic administrative data in Wales, UK. An exploration of GP smoking status data from the SAIL databank was carried out to explore the range of codes available and how they could be used in the identification of different categories of smokers, ex-smokers and never smokers. An algorithm was developed which addresses inconsistencies and changes in smoking status recording across the life course and compared with recorded smoking status as recorded in the Welsh Health Survey (WHS), 2013 and 2014 at individual level. However, the WHS could not be regarded as a "gold standard" for validation. There were 6836 individuals in the linked dataset. Missing data were more common in GP records (6%) than in WHS (1.1%). Our algorithm assigns ex-smoker status to 34% of never-smokers, and detects 30% more smokers than are declared in the WHS data. When distinguishing between current smokers and non-smokers, the similarity between the WHS and GP data using the nearest date of comparison was κ = 0.78. When temporal conflicts had been accounted for, the similarity was κ = 0.64, showing the importance of addressing conflicts. We present an algorithm for the identification of a patient's smoking status using GP self-reported data. We have included sufficient details to allow others to replicate this work, thus increasing the standards of documentation within this research area and assessment of smoking status in routine data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Master 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,826,216
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,048
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,266
of 420,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.