Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2000 Mar;54(3):221–226. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.3.221

Validation of self diagnosis of high blood pressure in a sample of the Spanish EPIC cohort: overall agreement and predictive values

M Tormo 1, C Navarro 1, M Chirlaque 1, X Barber 1, E the 1
PMCID: PMC1731632  PMID: 10746117

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE—High blood pressure is a variable related to several chronic conditions whose repeated measurement in large cohort studies is often not feasible having to rely on the self reporting of the subjects. The aim of the study is to validate such self diagnosis in a sample of members from the Spanish EPIC cohort study.
DESIGN—Comparison of high blood pressure self diagnosis with the information provided by the personal medical record drawn from the primary health centre of reference for such population.
SETTING—A small town near the EPIC-Murcia centre, one of five Spanish EPIC centres located in the south east, where inclusion in the cohort was offered to the general population.
PARTICIPANTS—The agreement between self reported high blood pressure status and data from medical records was measured in a representative sample of men and women (n= 248) aged 30-69 years. Medical records were studied for a diagnosis of high blood pressure, an anti-hypertensive pharmacological treatment or subject's inclusion in a hypertension control programme run in the medical centre only for hypertensive people (definite high blood pressure cases). As well, in the absence of such a diagnosis, medical annotations of systolic or diastolic high blood pressure⩾ 140/90 mm Hg (possible high blood pressure cases) were considered. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and κ scores were calculated for all, definite and possible high blood pressure cases. Variables associated with the probability of having a true positive or negative self report of high blood pressure were also tested.
MAIN RESULTS—As expected, sensitivity was higher among definite cases (72.7%) than among possible cases (31.6%). Accordingly, the agreement between self report and medical record was higher for definite cases (κ = 0.65) than for possible (κ = 0.29) cases leading to a moderate overall agreement for all cases (κ = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.69). Having some level of education (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.09, 1.05) was negatively associated to a true self report of high blood pressure while being female was positively associated (OR: 4.01; 95% CI: 1.04, 16.8). No variable showed any association with having a true self report of being normotensive.
CONCLUSIONS—High blood pressure self report shows a moderate agreement with medical information in this cohort allowing it to be used, with caution, as a surrogate variable of actual blood pressure status. However, because of its moderate sensitivity, it is not possible to rule out some underestimation when using self reported high blood pressure information for high blood pressure frequency measurements such as prevalence or incidence rates. This underestimation will be higher among men and educated people.


Keywords: hypertension; high blood pressure; validation; agreement

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (167.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bowlin S. J., Morrill B. D., Nafziger A. N., Lewis C., Pearson T. A. Reliability and changes in validity of self-reported cardiovascular disease risk factors using dual response: the behavioral risk factor survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 May;49(5):511–517. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00010-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bush T. L., Miller S. R., Golden A. L., Hale W. E. Self-report and medical record report agreement of selected medical conditions in the elderly. Am J Public Health. 1989 Nov;79(11):1554–1556. doi: 10.2105/ajph.79.11.1554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Canner P. L., Borhani N. O., Oberman A., Cutler J., Prineas R. J., Langford H., Hooper F. J. The Hypertension Prevention Trial: assessment of the quality of blood pressure measurements. Am J Epidemiol. 1991 Aug 15;134(4):379–392. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Colditz G. A., Martin P., Stampfer M. J., Willett W. C., Sampson L., Rosner B., Hennekens C. H., Speizer F. E. Validation of questionnaire information on risk factors and disease outcomes in a prospective cohort study of women. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 May;123(5):894–900. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ford E. S., Harel Y., Heath G., Cooper R. S., Caspersen C. J. Test characteristics of self-reported hypertension among the Hispanic population: findings from the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(2):159–165. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90179-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Haapanen N., Miilunpalo S., Pasanen M., Oja P., Vuori I. Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records of chronic diseases in middle-aged and elderly Finnish men and women. Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Apr 15;145(8):762–769. doi: 10.1093/aje/145.8.762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hebel J. R., Apostolides A. Y., Dischinger P., Entwisle G., Su S. Within-person variability in diastolic blood pressure for a cohort of normotensives. J Chronic Dis. 1980;33(11-12):745–750. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(80)90062-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Heliövaara M., Aromaa A., Klaukka T., Knekt P., Joukamaa M., Impivaara O. Reliability and validity of interview data on chronic diseases. The Mini-Finland Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Feb;46(2):181–191. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90056-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kroeger A. Health interview surveys in developing countries: a review of the methods and results. Int J Epidemiol. 1983 Dec;12(4):465–481. doi: 10.1093/ije/12.4.465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Psaty B. M., Kuller L. H., Bild D., Burke G. L., Kittner S. J., Mittelmark M., Price T. R., Rautaharju P. M., Robbins J. Methods of assessing prevalent cardiovascular disease in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Ann Epidemiol. 1995 Jul;5(4):270–277. doi: 10.1016/1047-2797(94)00092-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Riboli E. Nutrition and cancer: background and rationale of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Ann Oncol. 1992 Dec;3(10):783–791. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a058097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Singh H. J., Singh R., Sirisinghe R. G., Upadaya S. The variability of blood pressure following repeated measurements. Med J Malaysia. 1991 Dec;46(4):356–362. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vargas C. M., Burt V. L., Gillum R. F., Pamuk E. R. Validity of self-reported hypertension in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III, 1988-1991. Prev Med. 1997 Sep-Oct;26(5 Pt 1):678–685. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1997.0190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. de Sanjosé Llongueras S., Antó Boqué J. M., Caballero J. A. Comparación de la información obtenida en una encuesta de salud por entrevista con los registros de atención primaria. Gac Sanit. 1991 Nov-Dec;5(27):260–264. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(91)71078-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES