Cited by 18Health, Environment, Cognitive AgingMedical Coding and Health InformationEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities

The utility of EMR address histories for assessing neighborhood exposures

Open access
Hughes, Amy E., Pruitt, Sandi L.·2017·Annals of Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose Electronic medical records (EMRs) include residential address histories, which may alleviate exposure misclassification caused by exclusion of patient spatiotemporal location. EMR data are increasingly available but rarely leveraged as a measure of cumulative environmental exposure, in part due to limited understanding of the validity of EMR-derived address histories. Methods We compared EMR address histories to self-reported histories among 100 patients of a safety-net health care system completing a telephone survey. We assessed agreement and compared seven neighborhood-level environmental exposures as assessed using both data sources. Results While 17.1% of respondents did not live at the most recent EMR-derived address during the survey, nearly all (98%) lived there at some point. For respondents with more than one EMR-derived address (N = 64), 87.5% had once lived at the previous EMR address. Of these, 30.4% lived at 1 or more additional residences between the two most recent EMR address. For all measures, neighborhood-level environmental exposures did not differ when using EMR-derived versus self-report addresses. Conclusions More recent EMR-derived addresses are more accurate, and differences compared to self-reported addresses in neighborhood-level exposures are negligible. EMR-derived address histories are incomplete and likely suffer from collection bias; future research should further assess their validity and reliability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.07.016

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Three studies concluded that a single patient address was sufficient when patients may have moved several times over the study period.

    “When confronted with data from patients who may have moved several times over the study period, 3 studies concluded that a single patient address was sufficient;15,56,57”

    From The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says life-course neighborhood exposures cannot be fully assessed through a single measurement in space and time. The Discussion (page unavailable) also cautions that exposure misclassification may be greater over longer periods or with more moves. This paper does not conclude that one address is sufficient for patients who may have moved several times. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One study recommended using the most recent address.

    “one study recommended using the most recent address,56”

    From The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) finds that more recent EMR address entries are more accurate, which supports the rationale for using the most recent address. The paper does not explicitly recommend using only that address; its Conclusions instead describe the value of address histories for longitudinal exposure research. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Four (80%) of the included articles explored the impact of residential mobility on exposure assessment.

    “Four (80%) of the included articles explored the impact of residential mobility on exposure assessment; that is, whether patients’ moving impacted the results of studies looking at environmental outcomes.15,16,56,57”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [22]Quillian L Migration Patterns and the Growth of High-Poverty Neighborhoods, 1970–1990 Am J Sociol 1999 105 1 37 10.1086/210266 · DOI
  2. [34]Han D Rogerson PA Bonner MR Nie J Vena JE Muti P Assessing spatio-temporal variability of risk surfaces using residential history data in a case control study of breast cancer Int J Health Geogr 2005 4 9 10.1186/1476-072X-4-9 15826315 PMC1097750 · DOI
  3. [46]Wiseman RF Why Older People Move Theoretical Issues Res Aging 1980 2 141 54 10.1177/016402758022003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, A. E., & Pruitt, S. L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Amy E.
Venue
Annals of Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
20-26
ISSN
1047-2797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2513067231
Cited by
18
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT R1208)
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA163308, 5P30CA142543)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR001105)
  • NIH (R25 CA57712)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
Keywords
electronic health records, cumulative environmental exposure, exposure misclassification, data source agreement, data collection bias, safety net health care
MeSH terms
Air Pollution, Cross-Sectional Studies, Environmental Exposure, Female, Humans, Male, Population Dynamics, Residence Characteristics, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Geographic Information Systems, Electronic Health Records, Self Report

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