Comparing strategies for United States veterans' mortality ascertainment

doi:10.1186/1478-7954-3-2

Population Health Metrics

Volume 3

Viewing options:

Abstract
Full text
PDF (253KB)

Associated material:

Related literature:

Articles citing this article
on BioMed Central
on Google Scholar
on PubMed Central
Other articles by authors
on Google Scholar

Lorenz KA
Asch SM
Yano EM
Wang M
Rubenstein LV

on PubMed

Lorenz KA
Asch SM
Yano EM
Wang M
Rubenstein LV
Related articles/pages
on Google

on Google Scholar

on PubMed

Tools:

Post to:

Research

Comparing strategies for United States veterans' mortality ascertainment

Karl A Lorenz¹^,2^,3 , Steven M Asch¹^,2^,3 , Elizabeth M Yano¹^,4 , Mingming Wang¹ and Lisa V Rubenstein¹^,2^,3

¹VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles CA, USA

²Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles CA, USA

³RAND, Santa Monica CA, USA

⁴Department of Health Services, UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles CA, USA

author email corresponding author email

Population Health Metrics 2005, 3:2doi:10.1186/1478-7954-3-2


Published:	24 February 2005

Abstract

Background

We aimed to determine optimal strategies for complete mortality ascertainment comparing death certificates and United States (US) Veterans Administration (VA) records.

Methods

We constructed a cohort of California veterans who died in fiscal year (FY) 2000 and used VA services the year before death. We determined decedent status using California death certificates linked to VA utilization data and the VA Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator System (BIRLS) death file. We compared the characteristics of decedents who would not have been identified by either single source (e.g., VA BIRLS alone or California death certificates alone) with the rest of the cohort.

Results

A total of 8,813 veteran decedents were identified from both VA decedent files and death certificates. Of all decedents, 5,698 / 8,813 (65%) veterans were identified in both source files, but 2,426 / 8,813 (28%) decedents were not identified in VA BIRLS, and 689 / 8,813 (8%) were not identified in death certificates. Compared to the rest of the cohort, decedents whose mortality status was ascertained through either single source differed by race / ethnicity, marital status, and California residence. Clinically, veterans identified from either single source had less comorbidity and were less likely to have been users of VA inpatient or long term care, but equally or more likely to have been users of VA outpatient services.

Conclusion

As single sources, VA decedent files and death certificates each provided an incomplete record, and death ascertainment was improved by using both source files. Potential bias may vary depending on analytic interest.