Key result
Self-reported cardiovascular risk factors show moderate to good agreement with clinical measures, peaking for diabetes.
Why the study?
The reliability and validity of self-reported cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors remain inconsistent in aging research.
Are self-reported histories of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease reliable and valid compared to direct clinical measurements in older multi-ethnic adults?
Observational (n=1,870)
No
Are self-reported histories of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease reliable and valid compared to direct clinical measurements in older multi-ethnic adults?
Effect estimate: kappa 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.63)
Self-reported vascular risk factors are reasonably reliable and valid in older multi-ethnic adults, supporting their use in epidemiological studies when clinical data is unavailable.
Self-reports may suffice for vascular risks in older adults lacking clinical data; supports their use in epidemiological studies.
BACKGROUND: Queries for the presence of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors are typically assessed through self-report. However, the reliability and validity of self-reported cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors remain inconsistent in aging research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and validity of the most frequently self-reported vascular risk factors: hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease. METHODS: 1,870 individuals aged 65 years or older among African Americans, Caribbean Hispanics, and white non-Hispanic individuals were recruited as part of a community study of aging and dementia. We assessed the reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement of self-reported hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, in comparison with direct measures of blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and medication use. The analyses were subsequently stratified by age, sex, education, and ethnic group. RESULTS: Reliability of self-reported hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease was excellent. Agreement between self-reports and clinical measures was moderate for hypertension (kappa: 0.58), good for diabetes (kappa: 0.76-0.79), and moderate for heart disease (kappa: 0.45) differing slightly by age, sex, education, and ethnic group. Sensitivity and specificity for hypertension was 88.6% -78.1%, for diabetes was 87.7% -92.0% (HbA1c ≥6.5%) or 92.7% -92.8% (HbA1c ≥7%), and for heart disease was 85.8% -75.5%. Percent agreement of self-reported was 87.0% for hypertension, 91.6% -92.6% for diabetes, and 77.4% for heart disease. CONCLUSION: Ascertainment of self-reported histories of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease are reliable and valid compared to direct measurements or medication use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Aging and dementia (community cohort) (n=1,870). Self-reported vascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, heart disease) vs. Direct clinical measurements and medication use was evaluated on Agreement between self-reported and measured hypertension (kappa 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.63). Self-reported histories of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease showed moderate to good agreement with clinical measures, with kappa values of 0.58, 0.76-0.79, and 0.45, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: