GP information (3)

GP information (3)

Documentation first General Practitioner data collection (1992-1993)
Documentation second General Practitioner data collection (2000-2001)
Documentation third General Practitioner data collection (2005-2006)†
Documentation fourth General Practitioner data collection (2010)
Documentation fifth General Practitioner data collection (2016)

†: the dates mentioned refer to the investigation period in which the corresponding GP data were collected, not to the respondent cycles involved.
LASA file name: LASAEg01

Contact: Laura Schaap

Background
This is the third data collection at general practioners (GP’s). The first data collection was done in 1992/1993 by D. Kriegsman and B. Penninx (LASABg01.sav and LASABg01_docu 2008.doc). The second data collection was done in 2000/2001 by B. Schalk. Data can be found in LASACg01.sav, LASACg01_nonresponsbestand.sav and LASACg01_nonresponslabels.doc).

Measurement instruments in LASA
GP’s were approached if:
– respondents had joined the main interview in 2001/2002 (E-cycle) and had given informed consent, and
– respondents were included in the second cohort in 2002/2003 (2B-cycle) and had given informed consent.
In total, 570 GP’s were approached, providing information about 2550 respondents.

Data collection
The data collection procedures are shown in figure 1 (pdf). The GP’s were asked to fill in a questionnaire for each respondent. All GP’s with less than 20 respondents were sent an introduction letter and a number of questionnaire corresponding with the number of respondents in their practice. GP’s with 20 or more respondents were sent an introduction letter together with an example of the questionnaire. These GP’s were called one week later. They were asked whether they wanted to fill in the questionnaires themselves or if they wanted to let a researcher fill in the questionnaires at their practice. The GP’s had the option to receive a voucher of €7,50 for each completed questionnaire or to donate € 7,50 to charity (WorldGranny) for each completed questionnaire.
If the questionnaires were not returned after four weeks the GP’s were reminded with a letter (when the GP’s had less than 20 respondents) or by a phone call (when the GP’s had 20 or more respondents). The second reminder was another four weeks later and the last reminder was two weeks later. After receiving completed questionnaires the GP’s received a thank you letter, accompanied by vouchers of €7,50 if this option was chosen.

Results
In total 1706 questionnaires were completed (66,9% of the 2550 respondents). The results of the data collection can be found here.

Information about the data collection
The GP questionnaire can be found in LASAEg01_questionnaire_old and LASAEg01_questionnaire_new. Because the data collection involved both respondents from the first cohort and the second cohort, different questionnaires were conducted.
The questionnaire for the respondents of the first cohort had more answer categories for the questions about the first year of diagnosis. For the first cohort the categories were: before 2000, in 2000, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, in 2005. The categories for the new cohort were: before 2002, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004 and in 2005. All other questions are equal for both cohorts.

This current questionnaire is similar to the questionnaire used during the second GP data collection in 1995/1996, except for the questions about hypertension and weight problems, which were added to the current questionnaire.

Content of the GP questionnaire
The GP questionnaire of 2005/06 covers the presence, year of diagnosis and who diagnosed the disease (GP or medical specialist) of the following diseases: hypertension, peripheral artery disease, congestive heart failure, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia (incl. type and pacemaker implantation), transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, diabetes mellitus (incl. medication use), chronic non-specific lung-disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, malignancies (incl. location), depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, memory problems, fractures and weight problems. In addition, other chronic diseases that were present could be filled in (year of diagnosis was not asked). The questionnaire also includes a question on how these health problems affect daily living and some questions on end-of-life decisions.

Use of data
To increase reliability of the presence of chronic diseases, algorithms (decision trees) have been developed using data on chronic diseases in the main interview (self report of chronic diseases), the medical interview (inspections of medicine bottles) and through the medical records of general practitioners. Algorithms have been developed for diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular diseases.

Questionnaires
huisarts_vrl_E (pdf in Dutch)
huisarts_vrl_2B (pdf in Dutch)

Variable information
LASAEg01 (includes 2B) (pdf)

Availability of information per wave 1

BCDE
2B*		F*GH

3B*		MB*I*J*K*
GP-information

XX-XXUC-XX-

1 More information about the LASA data collection waves is available here.

* 2B=baseline second cohort;
3B=baseline third cohort;
MB=migrants: baseline first cohort;
F=under construction;
I, J, K=to be developed

Previous use in LASA
Kriegsman et al. (1996) state that patients’ self-reports on selected chronic diseases are fairly accurate, with the exceptions of atherosclerosis and arthritis. Overreporting and underreporting of specific diseases was associated with several personal characteristics. The results suggested that the tendency to overreport or underreport may be explained by denial by the patient, the tendency of patients to label symptoms or inaccuracy of GP records.

Galenkamp et al. (2014) compared self-reports with GP reported diseases in 2009 and examined how the prevalence of overreporting and underreporting had changed since 1992. Results showed that overreporting of chronic diseases became significantly more common over time, whereas under-reporting became less common.

Studies that used the GP data were amongst others:


References

  1. Galenkamp H, Huisman M, Braam AW, Schellevis FG, Deeg DJH. Disease prevalence based on older people’s self-reports increased, but patient-general practitioner agreement remained stable, 1992-2009.  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014, 67 (7): 773-780.
  2. Kriegsman, DM, Penninx BW, van Eijk JT, Boeke AJ, Deeg DJ. Self-reports and general practitioner information on the presence of chronic diseases in community-dwelling elderly. A study on the accuracy of patients’ self-reports and on determinants of inaccuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Dec; 49 (12):1407-17.


Date of last update: February 16, 2021 (LvZ)