↓ Skip to main content

The importance of including aliases in data linkage with vulnerable populations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
The importance of including aliases in data linkage with vulnerable populations
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0536-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly Tibble, Hsei Di Law, Matthew J. Spittal, Rosemary Karmel, Rohan Borschmann, Katie Hail-Jares, Laura A. Thomas, Stuart A. Kinner

Abstract

Records pertaining to individuals whose identity cannot be verified with legal documentation may contain errors, or be incorrect by intention of the individual. Probabilistic data linkage, especially in vulnerable populations where the incidence of such records may be higher, must be considerate of the usage of these records. A data linkage was conducted between Queensland Youth Justice records and the Australian National Death Index. Links were assessed to determine how often they were made using the unverified (alias) records that would not have been made in their absence (i.e. links that were not also made using solely verified records). Anomalies in the linked records were investigated in order to make evaluations of the sensitivity and specificity of the linkage, compared to the links made using only verified records. From links made using verified records only, 1309 deaths were identified (2.6% of individuals). Using alias records in addition, the number of links increased by 16%. Links made using alias records only were more common in females, and those born after 1985. Different records belonging to the same individual in the justice dataset did not link to different death records, however there were instances of the same death record linking to multiple cohort individuals. The inclusion of aliases in data linkage in youths involved in the justice system increased mortality ascertainment without any discernible increase in false positive matches. We therefore conclude that alias records should be included in data linkage procedures in order to avoid biased attenuation of ascertainment in vulnerable populations, leading to the concealment of health inequality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Unknown 15 60%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 68%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,501,947
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#978
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,949
of 328,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#37
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 328,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.