Advertisement

International Journal of Public Health

, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 721–729 | Cite as

Do self-reported data accurately measure health inequalities in risk factors for cardiovascular disease?

  • Irina KislayaEmail author
  • Julian Perelman
  • Hanna Tolonen
  • Baltazar Nunes
Original article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the magnitude of educational inequalities in self-reported and examination-based hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and to assess the impact of self-reported measurement error on health inequality indicators.

Methods

We used the Portuguese National Health Examination Survey data (n = 4911). The slope index of inequality (SII) and the relative index of inequality (RII) were used to determine the magnitude of absolute and relative education-related inequalities.

Results

Among the 25–49-year-old (yo) men, absolute and relative inequalities were smaller for self-reported than for examination-based hypertension (SIIeb = 0.18 vs. SIIsr = − 0.001, p < 0.001; RIIeb = 1.99 vs. RIIsr = 0.86, p = 0.031). For women, the relative inequalities were similar despite differences in self-reported and examination-based hypertension prevalence. For hypercholesterolemia, self-reported relative inequalities were larger than examination-based inequalities among the 50–74-yo men (RIIsr = 2.28 vs. RIIeb = 1.21, p = 0.004) and women (RIIsr = 1.22 vs. RIIeb= 0.87, p = 0.045), while no differences were observed among 25–49-yo.

Conclusions

Self-reported data underestimated educational inequalities among 25–49-yo men and overestimated them in older individuals. Inequality indicators derived from self-report should be interpreted with caution, and examination-based values should be preferred, when available.

Keywords

Health examination survey Health inequalities Hypercholesterolemia Hypertension Self-report 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Portuguese National Health Examination Survey (INSEF) was developed as part of the pre-defined project of the Public Health Initiatives Program, “Improvement of epidemiological health information to support public health decision and management in Portugal. Towards reduced inequalities, improved health, and bilateral cooperation,” that benefits from a 1.500.000€ Grant from Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway through the EEA Grants and Portuguese Government. The authors are grateful to all professionals who were involved in the INSEF implementation and to all INSEF participants.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

38_2019_1232_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 kb)

References

  1. Barros AJ, Hirakata VN (2003) Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burgard SA, Chen PV (2014) Challenges of health measurement in studies of health disparities. Soc Sci Med 106:143–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron KA, Song J, Manheim LM, Dunlop DD (2010) Gender disparities in health and healthcare use among older adults. J Women’s Health 19:1643–1650.  https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campos-Matos I, Russo G, Perelman J (2016) Connecting the dots on health inequalities: a systematic review on the social determinants of health in Portugal. Int J Equity Health 15:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0314-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi A, Cawley J (2018) Health disparities across education: the role of differential reporting error. Health Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3609 Google Scholar
  6. Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A (2010) Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. J Health Econ 29:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.10.003.Understanding CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Mestral C, Stringhini S (2017) Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease: an update. Curr Cardiol Rep 19:115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Direção Geral da Saúde (2013) Abordagem Terapêutica das Dislipidemias no Adulto. LisboaGoogle Scholar
  9. Durack-Bown I, Giral P, d’Ivernois J-F et al (2003) Patients’ and physicians’ perceptions and experience of hypercholesterolaemia: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 53(496):851–857Google Scholar
  10. Eliassen B-M, Melhus M, Tell GS et al (2016) Validity of self-reported myocardial infarction and stroke in regions with Sami and Norwegian populations: the SAMINOR 1 survey and the CVDNOR project. BMJ Open 6:e012717.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ernstsen L, Strand BH, Nilsen SM et al (2012) Trends in absolute and relative educational inequalities in four modifiable ischaemic heart disease risk factors: repeated cross-sectional surveys from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) 1984–2008. BMC Public Health 12:266.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology, European Association of Echocardiography, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions et al (2012) European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). Eur J Prev Cardiol 19:585–667.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312450228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaio V, Antunes L, Namorado S et al (2017) Prevalence of overweight and obesity in Portugal: results from the First Portuguese Health Examination Survey (INSEF 2015). Obes Res Clin Pract 12:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeffries M, Grogan S (2012) ‘Oh, I’m just, you know, a little bit weak because I’m going to the doctor’s’: young men’s talk of self-referral to primary healthcare services. Psychol Health 27:898–915.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.631542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kulhánová I, Hoffmann R, Eikemo TA et al (2014) Educational inequalities in mortality by cause of death: first national data for the Netherlands. Int J Public Health 59:687–696.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-014-0576-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuulasmaa K, Tolonen H, Koponen P et al (2012) An overview of the European health examination survey pilot joint action. Arch Public Health 70:20.  https://doi.org/10.1186/0778-7367-70-20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lorant V, Boland B, Humblet P, Deliège D (2002) Equity in prevention and health care. J Epidemiol Community Health 56:510–516.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.7.510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE (1997) Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: an overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe. Soc Sci Med 44:757–771.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00073-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackenbach JP, Looman CWN, Van Der Meer JBW (1996) Differences in the misreporting of chronic conditions, by level of education: the effect on inequalities in prevalence rates. Am J Public Health 86:706–711.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.86.5.706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mindell JS, Giampaoli S, Goesswald A et al (2015) Sample selection, recruitment and participation rates in health examination surveys in Europe—experience from seven national surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:78.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0072-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molenaar EA, Van Ameijden EJC, Grobbee DE, Numans ME (2007) Comparison of routine care self-reported and biometrical data on hypertension and diabetes: results of the Utrecht Health Project. Eur J Public Health 17:199–205.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckl113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mosca I, Bhuachalla BN, Kenny RA (2013) Explaining significant differences in subjective and objective measures of cardiovascular health: evidence for the socioeconomic gradient in a population-based study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 13:64.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-13-64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newell SA, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ (1999) The accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease in the general population. Am J Prev Med 17:211–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00069-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nunes B, Barreto M, Gil AP et al (2018) The first Portuguese National Health Examination Survey (2015): design, planning and implementation. J Public Health (Bangkok).  https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy150 Google Scholar
  25. Official Journal of the European Union (2014) Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the establishment of a third programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (2014–2020). Off J Eur Union 13Google Scholar
  26. Paalanen L, Koponen P, Laatikainen T, Tolonen H (2018) Public health monitoring of hypertension, diabetes and elevated cholesterol: comparison of different data sources. Eur J Public Health.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky020 Google Scholar
  27. Perelman J, Fernandes A, Mateus C (2012) Gender disparities in health and healthcare: results from the Portuguese National Health Interview Survey. Cad Saude Publica 28:2339–2348.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2012001400012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Preisendörfer P, Wolter F (2014) Who is telling the truth? A validation study on determinants of response behavior in surveys. Public Opin Q 78:126–146.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reiner Z, Catapano AL, De Backer G et al (2011) ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: the task force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). Eur Heart J 32:1769–1818.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sommer I, Griebler U, Mahlknecht P et al (2015) Socioeconomic inequalities in non-communicable diseases and their risk factors: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Public Health 15:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2227-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Speybroeck N, Harper S, De Savigny D, Victora C (2012) Inequalities of health indicators for policy makers: six hints. Int J Public Health 57:855–858.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0386-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. StataCorp (2017) Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. StataCorp, College StationGoogle Scholar
  33. Tolonen H, Koponen P, Aromaa A et al (2008) Recommendations for the health examination surveys in Europe. Julkaisija-Utgivare-Publisher, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  34. Tolonen H, Koponen P, Mindell J et al (2014a) European health examination survey-towards a sustainable monitoring system. Eur J Public Health 24:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tolonen H, Koponen P, Mindell JS et al (2014b) Under-estimation of obesity, hypertension and high cholesterol by self-reported data: comparison of self-reported information and objective measures from health examination surveys. Eur J Public Health 24:941–948.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (2011) International standard classification of education. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Vellakkal S, Millett C, Basu S et al (2015) Are estimates of socioeconomic inequalities in chronic disease artefactually narrowed by self-reported measures of prevalence in low-income and middle-income countries? Findings from the WHO-SAGE survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 69:218–225.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von dem Knesebeck O, Verde PE, Dragano N (2006) Education and health in 22 European countries. Soc Sci Med 63:1344–1351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilkins E, Wilson L, Wickramasinghe K et al (2017) European cardiovascular disease statistics 2017 edition, vol 34. European Heart Network, Brussels, p 192. ISBN 978-2-9537898-1-2Google Scholar
  40. Zhang Y, Moran AE (2017) Trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among young adults in the United States, 1999 to 2014. Hypertension 70:736–742.  https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.09801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de EpidemiologiaInstituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, IPLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Centro de Investigação em Saúde Pública, Escola Nacional de Saúde PúblicaUniversidade NOVA de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Public Health SolutionsNational Institute for Health and Welfare (THL)HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations