Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Development and implementation of the first national data quality standards for population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States

Authors: Marlene Anderka, Cara T. Mai, Paul A. Romitti, Glenn Copeland, Jennifer Isenburg, Marcia L. Feldkamp, Sergey Krikov, Russel Rickard, Richard S. Olney, Mark A. Canfield, Carol Stanton, Bridget Mosley, Russell S. Kirby

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Population-based birth defects surveillance is a core public health activity in the United States (U.S.); however, the lack of national data quality standards has limited the use of birth defects surveillance data across state programs. Development of national standards will facilitate data aggregation and utilization across birth defects surveillance programs in the U.S.

Methods

Based on national standards for other U.S. public health surveillance programs, existing National Birth Defects Prevention Network (NBDPN) guidelines for conducting birth defects surveillance, and information from birth defects surveillance programs regarding their current data quality practices, we developed 11 data quality measures that focused on data completeness (n = 5 measures), timeliness (n = 2), and accuracy (n = 4). For each measure, we established tri-level performance criteria (1 = rudimentary, 2 = essential, 3 = optimal). In January 2014, we sent birth defects surveillance programs in each state, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. Department of Defense Birth and Infant Health Registry an invitation to complete a self-administered NBDPN Standards Data Quality Assessment Tool. The completed forms were electronically submitted to the CDC for analyses.

Results

Of 47 eligible population-based surveillance programs, 45 submitted a completed assessment tool. Two of the 45 programs did not meet minimum inclusion criteria and were excluded; thus, the final analysis included information from 43 programs. Average scores for four of the five completeness performance measures were above level 2. Conversely, the average scores for both timeliness measures and three of the four accuracy measures were below level 2. Surveillance programs using an active case-finding approach scored higher than programs using passive case-finding approaches for the completeness and accuracy measures, whereas their average scores were lower for timeliness measures.

Conclusions

This initial, nation-wide assessment of data quality across U.S. population-based birth defects surveillance programs highlights areas for improvement. Using this information to identify strengths and weaknesses, the birth defects surveillance community, working through the NBDPN, can enhance and implement a consistent set of standards that can promote uniformity and enable surveillance programs to work towards improving the potential of these programs.

Literature
  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update on overall prevalence of major birth defects--Atlanta, Georgia, 1978–2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57(1):1–5.
  2. Mathews TJ, MacDorman MF. Infant mortality statistics from the 2010 period linked birth/infant death data set, National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 62. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2013. p. 8.
  3. Watkins ML, Edmonds L, McClearn A, Mullins L, Mulinare J, Khoury M. The surveillance of birth defects: the usefulness of the revised US standard birth certificate. Am J Public Health. 1996;86(5):731–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  4. Kirby RS. The quality of the data reported on birth certificates [Letter]. Am J of Public Health. 1997;8(2):301.View Article
  5. Boulet SL, Shin M, Kirby RS, Goodman D, Correa A. Sensitivity of birth certificate reports of birth defects in Atlanta, 1995–2005: effects of maternal, infant, and hospital characteristics. Public Health Rep. 2011;126(2):186–94.PubMedPubMed Central
  6. NBDPN. Congenital Malformation Surveillance Report: A report from the National Birth Defects Prevention Network. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2013;97:10.
  7. Canfield MA, Honein MA, Yuskiv N, Xing J, Mai CT, Collins JS, et al. National estimates and race/ethnic-specific variation of selected birth defects in the United States, 1999–2001. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2006;76:747–56.View ArticlePubMed
  8. Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA, Rickard R, Wang Y, Meyer RE, et al. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88(12):1008–16.View ArticlePubMed
  9. Hetzel AM. History and organization of the vital statistics system, National center for health statistics. 1997.
  10. Wingo PA, Jamison PM, Hiatt RA, Weir HK, Gargiullo PM, Hutton M, et al. Building the infrastructure for nationwide cancer surveillance and control—a comparison between the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14(2):175–93.View ArticlePubMed
  11. National Birth Defects Prevention Network (NBDPN). Guidelines for Conducting Birth Defects Surveillance. Sever, LE, ed. Atlanta, GA: National Birth Defects Prevention Network, Inc., June 2004.
  12. Cancer Registries Amendment Act. PUBLIC LAW 102–515—OCT. 24, 1992: http://​www.​cdc.​gov/​cancer/​npcr/​npcrpdfs/​publaw.​pdf (accessed 7/17/2014).
  13. Loane M, Dolk H, Garne E, Greenlees R, EUROCAT Working Group. Paper 3: EUROCAT Data Quality Indicators for Population-Based Registries of Congenital Anomalies. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2011;91:23–30.View Article
Metadata
Title
Development and implementation of the first national data quality standards for population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States
Authors
Marlene Anderka
Cara T. Mai
Paul A. Romitti
Glenn Copeland
Jennifer Isenburg
Marcia L. Feldkamp
Sergey Krikov
Russel Rickard
Richard S. Olney
Mark A. Canfield
Carol Stanton
Bridget Mosley
Russell S. Kirby
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2223-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue