Cited by 17Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningMedical Coding and Health InformationOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Improving the quality of industry and occupation data at a central cancer registry

Armenti, Karla R., Celaya, Maria O., Cherala, Sai, Riddle, Bruce, Schumacher, Pamela K., Rees, Judy R.·2010·American Journal of Industrial Medicine

Abstract

Background: Central cancer registries are required to collect industry and occupation (I/O) information when available, but the data reported are often incomplete. Methods: We audited the completeness of I/O data in the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry (NHSCR) database for diagnosis year 2005, and reviewed medical records for a convenience sample of 474 of these cases. We compared I/O data quality before and after a statewide registrar training session on occupationally related cancers. Results: The original 2005 data contained both I/O data in 11.5% of cases, and lacked any I/O data in 74.5%. Corresponding figures for cases selected for audit were 15.2% and 77.2%, which improved to 54.2% and 11.8% after medical record review. After registrar training, 47% of reports contained both I/O data, and only 14.4% of cases lacked any I/O data. Conclusions: Statewide training to highlight the importance of I/O data is an effective method to improve I/O data quality. Am. J. Ind. Med. 53:995–1001, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajim.20851

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Six of the 7 studies (86%) that looked at the quality of occupational data primarily examined completeness, all noting that occupational information is frequently missing from the health record.

    “Six of the 7 studies (86%) that looked at the quality of occupational data primarily examined completeness, all noting that occupational information is frequently missing from the health record.10,60–64”
  • Four studies found that occupational data were not missing at random and that male patients were more likely to have occupational information in their record.

    “Four studies found that data were not missing at random and that male patients were more likely to have occupational information in their record.60,62–64”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Armenti, K. R., Celaya, M. O., Cherala, S., Riddle, B., Schumacher, P. K., & Rees, J. R.
Affiliations
  • New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Armenti, Karla R.
Venue
American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-16
Volume
53
Issue
10
Pages
995-1001
ISSN
  • 0271-3586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0274
OpenAlex
W2169227974
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Industrial Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (U58/DP000798)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
data quality, data completeness, occupational cancer, registrar training, medical records review
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Industry, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, New Hampshire, Occupational Diseases, Occupations, Registries, Research Design, Incidence, Young Adult, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review