Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Obesity | Research

Using random-forest multiple imputation to address bias of self-reported anthropometric measures, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in the Belgian health interview survey

Authors: Ingrid Pelgrims, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Stefanie Vandevijvere, Eva M. De Clercq, Stijn Vansteelandt, Vanessa Gorasso, Johan Van der Heyden

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In many countries, the prevalence of non-communicable diseases risk factors is commonly assessed through self-reported information from health interview surveys. It has been shown, however, that self-reported instead of objective data lead to an underestimation of the prevalence of obesity, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. This study aimed to assess the agreement between self-reported and measured height, weight, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and to identify an adequate approach for valid measurement error correction.

Methods

Nine thousand four hundred thirty-nine participants of the 2018 Belgian health interview survey (BHIS) older than 18 years, of which 1184 participated in the 2018 Belgian health examination survey (BELHES), were included in the analysis. Regression calibration was compared with multiple imputation by chained equations based on parametric and non-parametric techniques.

Results

This study confirmed the underestimation of risk factor prevalence based on self-reported data. With both regression calibration and multiple imputation, adjusted estimation of these variables in the BHIS allowed to generate national prevalence estimates that were closer to their BELHES clinical counterparts. For overweight, obesity and hypertension, all methods provided smaller standard errors than those obtained with clinical data. However, for hypercholesterolemia, for which the regression model’s accuracy was poor, multiple imputation was the only approach which provided smaller standard errors than those based on clinical data.

Conclusions

The random-forest multiple imputation proves to be the method of choice to correct the bias related to self-reported data in the BHIS. This method is particularly useful to enable improved secondary analysis of self-reported data by using information included in the BELHES. Whenever feasible, combined information from HIS and objective measurements should be used in risk factor monitoring.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases report 2018. World Health Organ. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. p. 223.
3.
Maukonen M, Männistö S, Tolonen H. A comparison of measured versus self-reported anthropometrics for assessing obesity in adults: a literature review. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46: 565–79.
4.
Flegal KM, Graubard B, Ioannidis JPA. Use and reporting of Bland-Altman analyses in studies of self-reported versus measured weight and height. Int J Obes (Lond). 2020;44(6):1311–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Tolonen H, Koponen P, Mindell JS, Männistö S, Giampaoli S, Dias CM, et al. 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. 2014;24(6):941–8.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Gorber SC, Tremblay M, Moher D, Gorber B. A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review. Obesity Reviews. 2007;8(4):307–26.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Gonçalves VSS, Andrade KRC, Carvalho KMB, Silva MT, Pereira MG, Galvao TF. Accuracy of self-reported hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2018;36(5):970–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Sarah CG, Mark T, Norm C, Jill H. The Accuracy of Self-Reported Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Curr Hypertens Rev. 2008;4(1):36–62.CrossRef
9.
Atwood KM, Robitaille CJ, Reimer K, Dai S, Johansen HL, Smith MJ. Comparison of diagnosed, self-reported, and physically-measured hypertension in Canada. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(5):606–12.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Ning M, Zhang Q, Yang M. Comparison of self-reported and biomedical data on hypertension and diabetes: findings from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). BMJ Open. 2016;6(1): e009836.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Huerta JM, Tormo MJ, Egea-Caparrós JM, Ortolá-Devesa JB, Navarro C. Accuracy of Self-Reported Diabetes, Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia in the Adult Spanish Population. DINO Study Findings Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009;62(2):143–52.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Fontanelli M de M, Nogueira LR, Garcez MR, Sales CH, Corrente JE, César CLG, et al. [Validity of self-reported high cholesterol in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, and factors associated with this information’s sensitivity]. Cad Saude Publica. 2018;34(12):e00034718.PubMed
13.
Paalanen L, Koponen P, Laatikainen T, Tolonen H. Public health monitoring of hypertension, diabetes and elevated cholesterol: comparison of different data sources. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(4):754–65.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Natarajan S, Lipsitz SR, Nietert PJ. Self-report of high cholesterol: determinants of validity in U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(1):13–21.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Taylor A, Dal Grande E, Gill T, Pickering S, Grant J, Adams R, et al. Comparing self-reported and measured high blood pressure and high cholesterol status using data from a large representative cohort study. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2010;34(4):394–400.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Chun H, Kim IH, Min KD. Accuracy of self-reported hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia: analysis of a representative sample of Korean older adults. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2016;7(2):108–15.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA. Measurement error in nonlinear models. London; New York: Chapman & Hall; 1995.CrossRef
18.
19.
Prentice RL. Measurement error and results from analytic epidemiology: dietary fat and breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88(23):1738–47.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Rosella LC, Corey P, Stukel TA, Mustard C, Hux J, Manuel DG. The influence of measurement error on calibration, discrimination, and overall estimation of a risk prediction model. Popul Health Metr. 2012;10(1):20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Jurek AM, Maldonado G, Greenland S, Church TR. Exposure-measurement error is frequently ignored when interpreting epidemiologic study results. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(12):871–6.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Shaw PA, Deffner V, Keogh RH, Tooze JA, Dodd KW, Küchenhoff H, et al. Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: review of current practice and recommendations. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(11):821–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Cole SR, Chu H, Greenland S. Multiple-imputation for measurement-error correction. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(4):1074–81.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Visscher TLS, Viet AL, Kroesbergen IHT, Seidell JC. Underreporting of BMI in adults and its effect on obesity prevalence estimations in the period 1998 to 2001. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(11):2054–63.PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
Plankey MW, Stevens J, Fiegal KM, Rust PF. Prediction equations do not eliminate systematic error in self-reported body mass index. Obes Res. 1997;5(4):308–14.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Dutton DJ, McLaren L. The usefulness of “corrected” body mass index vs. self-reported body mass index: comparing the population distributions, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive utility of three correction equations using Canadian population-based data. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:430.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Edwards JK, Cole SR, Westreich D, Crane H, Eron JJ, Mathews WC, et al. Multiple Imputation to Account for Measurement Error in Marginal Structural Models. Epidemiology. 2015;26(5):645–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Blackwell M, Honaker J, King G. A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications. Sociological Methods and Research. 2017;46(3):303–41.CrossRef
30.
Shaw PA, Gustafson P, Carroll RJ, Deffner V, Dodd KW, Keogh RH, et al. STRATOS guidance document on measurement error and misclassification of variables in observational epidemiology: Part 2-More complex methods of adjustment and advanced topics. Stat Med. 2020;39(16):2232–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Campion WM, Rubin D. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. 1989.
32.
Slade E, Naylor MG. A fair comparison of tree-based and parametric methods in multiple imputation by chained equations. Stat Med. 2020;39(8):1156–66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Strobl C, Malley J, Tutz G. An Introduction to Recursive Partitioning: Rationale, Application and Characteristics of Classification and Regression Trees. Bagging and Random Forests Psychol Methods. 2009;14(4):323–48.PubMed
34.
Burgette LF, Reiter JP. Multiple Imputation for Missing Data via Sequential Regression Trees. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(9):1070–6.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Laqueur HS, Shev AB, Kagawa RMC. SuperMICE: An Ensemble Machine Learning Approach to Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations. Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(3):516–25.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Shah AD, Bartlett JW, Carpenter J, Nicholas O, Hemingway H. Comparison of random forest and parametric imputation models for imputing missing data using MICE: a CALIBER study. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(6):764–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Doove L, Buuren S, Dusseldorp E. Recursive partitioning for missing data imputation in the presence of interaction effects. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014;72:92–104.CrossRef
38.
Demarest S, Van der Heyden J, Charafeddine R, Drieskens S, Gisle L, Tafforeau J. Methodological basics and evolution of the Belgian health interview survey 1997–2008. Arch Public Health. 2013;71(1):24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Bel S, Van den Abeele S, Lebacq T, Ost C, Brocatus L, Stiévenart C, et al. Protocol of the Belgian food consumption survey 2014: objectives, design and methods. Arch Public Health. 2016;74(1):20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Nguyen D, Hautekiet P, Berete F, Braekman E, Charafeddine R, Demarest S, et al. The Belgian health examination survey: objectives, design and methods. Archives of Public Health. 2020;78(1):50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
42.
Tolonen H, Koponen P, Al-Kerwi A, Capkova N, Giampaoli S, Mindell J, et al. European health examination surveys - a tool for collecting objective information about the health of the population. Arch Public Health. 2018;76:38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
46.
Drieskens S, Demarest S, Bel S, De Ridder K, Tafforeau J. Correction of self-reported BMI based on objective measurements: a Belgian experience. Archives of Public Health. 2018;76(1):10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Brettschneider AK, Rosario AS, Ellert U. Validity and predictors of BMI derived from self-reported height and weight among 11- to 17-year-old German adolescents from the KiGGS study. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:414.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Großschädl F, Haditsch B, Stronegger WJ. Validity of self-reported weight and height in Austrian adults: sociodemographic determinants and consequences for the classification of BMI categories. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(1):20–7.PubMedCrossRef
49.
De Vriendt T, Huybrechts I, Ottevaere C, Van Trimpont I, De Henauw S. Validity of self-reported weight and height of adolescents, its impact on classification into BMI-categories and the association with weighing behaviour. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(10):2696–711.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Gugushvili A, Jarosz E. Inequality, validity of self-reported height, and its implications for BMI estimates: An analysis of randomly selected primary sampling units’ data. Prev Med Rep. 2019;16:100974.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Ng SP, Korda R, Clements M, Latz I, Bauman A, Bambrick H, et al. Validity of self-reported height and weight and derived body mass index in middle-aged and elderly individuals in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011;35(6):557–63.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Lu S, Su J, Xiang Q, Zhou J, Wu M. Accuracy of self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference in a general adult Chinese population. Popul Health Metrics. 2016;14(1):30.CrossRef
53.
Celis-Morales C, Livingstone KM, Woolhead C, Forster H, O’Donovan CB, Macready AL, et al. How reliable is internet-based self-reported identity, socio-demographic and obesity measures in European adults? Genes Nutr. 2015;10(5):28.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Pursey K, Burrows TL, Stanwell P, Collins CE. How accurate is web-based self-reported height, weight, and body mass index in young adults? J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Stommel M, Schoenborn CA. Accuracy and usefulness of BMI measures based on self-reported weight and height: findings from the NHANES & NHIS 2001–2006. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:421.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
McAdams MA, Van Dam RM, Hu FB. Comparison of self-reported and measured BMI as correlates of disease markers in US adults. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(1):188–96.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Madrigal H, Sánchez-Villegas A, Martínez-González MA, Kearney J, Gibney MJ, Irala J, et al. Underestimation of body mass index through perceived body image as compared to self-reported body mass index in the European Union. Public Health. 2000;114(6):468–73.PubMedCrossRef
58.
59.
White IR. Commentary: dealing with measurement error: multiple imputation or regression calibration? Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(4):1081–2.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using random-forest multiple imputation to address bias of self-reported anthropometric measures, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in the Belgian health interview survey
Authors
Ingrid Pelgrims
Brecht Devleesschauwer
Stefanie Vandevijvere
Eva M. De Clercq
Stijn Vansteelandt
Vanessa Gorasso
Johan Van der Heyden
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01892-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2023 Go to the issue

Software

MSMpred: interactive modelling and prediction of individual evolution via multistate models

Research

Asynchronous online focus groups for research with people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and family caregivers: usefulness, acceptability and lessons learned

Correction

Correction: In health research publications, the number of authors is strongly associated with collective self-citations but less so with citations by others

Research

Interdisciplinary sport injury research and the integration of qualitative and quantitative data

Research

A Bayesian latent class extension of naive Bayesian classifier and its application to the classification of gastric cancer patients

Research

A study on fractional tumor-immune interaction model related to lung cancer via generalized Laguerre polynomials