Cited by 630Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Generalisability of The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database: demographics, chronic disease prevalence and mortality rates

Open access
Blak, Betina, Thompson, Mary, Dattani, Hassy, Bourke, Alison·2011·Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics

Abstract

Introduction The degree of generalisability of patient databases to the general population is important for interpreting database research. This report describes the representativeness of The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a UK primary care database, of the UK population. Methods Demographics, deprivation (Townsend), Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) condition prevalence and deaths from THIN were compared with national statistical and QOF 2006/2007 data. Results Demographics were similar although THIN contained fewer people aged under 25 years. Condition prevalence was comparable, e.g. 3.5% diabetes prevalence in THIN, 3.7% nationally. More THIN patients lived in the most affluent areas (23.5% in THIN, 20% nationally). Between 1990 and 2009, standardised mortality ratio ranged from 0.81 (95% CI: 0.39-1.49; 1990) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.48-1.64; 1995). Adjusting for demographics/deprivation, the 2006 THIN death rate was 9.08/1000 population close to the national death rate of 9.4/1000 population. Conclusion THIN is generalisable to the UK for demographics, major condition prevalence and death rates adjusted for demographics and deprivation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14236/jhi.v19i4.820

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blak, B., Thompson, M., Dattani, H., & Bourke, A.
Venue
Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
Publisher
Portico
Published
2011-07-01
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
251-255
ISSN
  • 1475-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 2058-4555
OpenAlex
W1783190234
Cited by
630
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 2
FWCI
34.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
Health Improvement Network, primary care databases, generalizability, representativeness, demographic factors, socioeconomic deprivation, Townsend index, chronic disease prevalence, mortality rates, Quality and Outcomes Framework, diabetes prevalence, standardized mortality ratio
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Chronic Disease, Demography, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Socioeconomic Factors, Databases, Factual, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, 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