Evaluating perinatal health in Europe: a comparison of routine population birth data sources

Abstract Background International comparisons provide essential benchmarks for evaluating perinatal health policies, but these rely on the availability of routine national birth data. This study aimed to describe population birth data sources in Europe by their ability to provide core perinatal health indicators. Methods The Euro-Peristat Network collected routine national data on a recommended set of core indicators from 2015 to 2021 using a federated protocol based on a common data model with 17 data items. Data providers filled in an on-line questionnaire to describe the sources used in each country. We classified countries by the number of data items they provided (all 16, 15-14, <14). Results 28 out of the 31 countries that provided data responded to the survey. Routine data sources included birth certificates (14 countries), electronic medical records (EMR) from delivery hospitalizations (14 countries), direct entry by health providers (9 countries), EMR from other care providers (6 countries) and Hospital Discharge Summaries (7 countries). Completeness of population coverage was at least 98%, with 15 countries reporting 100%. These databases most often included mothers giving birth on the national territory, regardless of nationality or place of residence (19 countries). In 20 countries, routine sources were linked, including linkage between birth and death certificates (15 countries). Countries providing all 16 items (N = 8) were more likely to use EMRs from delivery hospitalizations, 88%, compared to 50% and 13% in countries with 15-14 items (N = 13) and <14 items (N = 8). Linkage was also more common in these countries, 100%, versus 75% and 50% respectively. Other data source characteristics did not differ by the ability to provide data for the common data model. Conclusions There is high diversity in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. Countries using EMR with linkage to other sources had the best data availability. Key messages • There is high diversity in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. • Countries using Electronic Medical Records with linkage to other sources had the best data availability.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Public Health
Published
2024-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.1470
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Birth, Development, and Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.11
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating perinatal health in Europe: a comparison of routine population birth data sources

Marianne Philibert, Željka Draušnik, Óscar Zurriaga, P Velebil et al.
1 citations
European Journal of Public Health
Birth, Development, and Health
1.11
article

Evaluating perinatal health in Europe: a comparison of routine population birth data sources

Marianne Philibert, Željka Draušnik, Óscar Zurriaga, P Velebil, Luule Sakkeus, Serena Donati, Mika Gissler, Jennifer Zeitlin, G Heller
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background International comparisons provide essential benchmarks for evaluating perinatal health policies, but these rely on the availability of routine national birth data. This study aimed to describe population birth data sources in Europe by their ability to provide core perinatal health indicators. Methods The Euro-Peristat Network collected routine national data on a recommended set of core indicators from 2015 to 2021 using a federated protocol based on a common data model with 17 data items. Data providers filled in an on-line questionnaire to describe the sources used in each country. We classified countries by the number of data items they provided (all 16, 15-14, <14). Results 28 out of the 31 countries that provided data responded to the survey. Routine data sources included birth certificates (14 countries), electronic medical records (EMR) from delivery hospitalizations (14 countries), direct entry by health providers (9 countries), EMR from other care providers (6 countries) and Hospital Discharge Summaries (7 countries). Completeness of population coverage was at least 98%, with 15 countries reporting 100%. These databases most often included mothers giving birth on the national territory, regardless of nationality or place of residence (19 countries). In 20 countries, routine sources were linked, including linkage between birth and death certificates (15 countries). Countries providing all 16 items (N = 8) were more likely to use EMRs from delivery hospitalizations, 88%, compared to 50% and 13% in countries with 15-14 items (N = 13) and <14 items (N = 8). Linkage was also more common in these countries, 100%, versus 75% and 50% respectively. Other data source characteristics did not differ by the ability to provide data for the common data model. Conclusions There is high diversity in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. Countries using EMR with linkage to other sources had the best data availability. Key messages • There is high diversity in the data sources used to construct perinatal health indicators in Europe. • Countries using Electronic Medical Records with linkage to other sources had the best data availability.

European Journal of Public HealthVol. 34(Supplement_3)
Tulane University (US), Inserm (FR), Universitat de València (ES), Tallinn University (EE), Université Paris Cité (FR), Karolinska Institutet (SE), Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (DE), Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (FI), Institute of Public Health Bengaluru (IN), Sorbonne Paris Cité (FR), National Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (IT), Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (ES), Hrvatski zavod za javno zdravstvo (HR), Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (DE), Ústav pro Péči o Matku a Dítě (CZ), Multi Electrical System (Suriname) (SR), Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Birth, Development, and Health
1.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.