Observed intra-cluster correlation coefficients in a cluster survey sample of patient encounters in general practice in Australia

Stephanie A Knox, Patty Chondros, Stephanie A Knox, Patty Chondros

Abstract

Background: Cluster sample study designs are cost effective, however cluster samples violate the simple random sample assumption of independence of observations. Failure to account for the intra-cluster correlation of observations when sampling through clusters may lead to an under-powered study. Researchers therefore need estimates of intra-cluster correlation for a range of outcomes to calculate sample size. We report intra-cluster correlation coefficients observed within a large-scale cross-sectional study of general practice in Australia, where the general practitioner (GP) was the primary sampling unit and the patient encounter was the unit of inference.

Methods: Each year the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) study recruits a random sample of approximately 1,000 GPs across Australia. Each GP completes details of 100 consecutive patient encounters. Intra-cluster correlation coefficients were estimated for patient demographics, morbidity managed and treatments received. Intra-cluster correlation coefficients were estimated for descriptive outcomes and for associations between outcomes and predictors and were compared across two independent samples of GPs drawn three years apart.

Results: Between April 1999 and March 2000, a random sample of 1,047 Australian general practitioners recorded details of 104,700 patient encounters. Intra-cluster correlation coefficients for patient demographics ranged from 0.055 for patient sex to 0.451 for language spoken at home. Intra-cluster correlations for morbidity variables ranged from 0.005 for the management of eye problems to 0.059 for management of psychological problems. Intra-cluster correlation for the association between two variables was smaller than the descriptive intra-cluster correlation of each variable. When compared with the April 2002 to March 2003 sample (1,008 GPs) the estimated intra-cluster correlation coefficients were found to be consistent across samples.

Conclusions: The demonstrated precision and reliability of the estimated intra-cluster correlations indicate that these coefficients will be useful for calculating sample sizes in future general practice surveys that use the GP as the primary sampling unit.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Intra-cluster correlation(ICC) and 95% confidence intervals for descriptive and morbidity outcomes in two BEACH samples, April 1999–March 2000 (N = 1047 GPs) and April 2002–March 2003(N = 1008 GPs) * Total problems = the number of problems managed at the current encounter.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) and 95% confidence interval for association between morbidity outcomes with health care card status as predictor in two BEACH samples, April 1999–March 2000 (N = 1,047 GPs) and April 2002–March 2003 (N = 1,008 GPs)

References

    1. Carlin JB, Hocking J. Design of cross-sectional surveys using cluster sampling: an overview with Australian case studies. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999;23:546–551.
    1. Donner A, Birkett N, Buck C. Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1981;114:906–914.
    1. Kerry SM, Bland JM. Sample size in cluster randomisation. BMJ. 1998;316:549.
    1. Slymen DJ, Hovell MF. Cluster versus individual randomization in adolescent tobacco and alcohol studies: illustrations for design decisions. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26:765–771. doi: 10.1093/ije/26.4.765.
    1. Cosby RH, Howard M, Kaczorowski J, Willan AR, Sellors JW. Randomizing patients by family practice: sample size estimation, intracluster correlation and data analysis. Fam Pract. 2003;20:77–82. doi: 10.1093/fampra/20.1.77.
    1. O S, D H, R FB, B HF. Intraclass correlation estimates in a school-based smoking prevention study. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;144:425.
    1. Isaakidis P, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of cluster randomized controlled trials in sub-Saharan Africa. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:921–926. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg232.
    1. Murray DM, Rooney BL, Hannan PJ, Peterson AV, Ary DV, Biglan A, Botvin GJ, Evans RI, Flay BR, Futterman R. Intraclass correlation among common measures of adolescent smoking: estimates, correlates, and applications in smoking prevention studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:1038–1050.
    1. Varnell SP, Murray DM, Janega JB, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent practices. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:393–399.
    1. Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:416–422.
    1. Britt H, Miller GC, Charles J, Knox S, Sayer GP, Valenti L, Henderson J, Kelly Z. General practice activity in Australia 1999-2000. Canberra, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2000. (General Practice Series No. 5).
    1. Calcino GF. In: Sampling from the HIC data set: 1993. Group TA, editor. Canberra, DHHLGCS; 1993. pp. 31–37.
    1. Britt H, Miller GC, Knox S, Charles J, Valenti L, Henderson J, Pan Y, Bayram C, Harrison C. General practice activity in Australia 2002-03. Canberra, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2003. (General Practice Series No. 14).
    1. Classification Committee of the World Organization of Family Doctors (WICC) ICPC-2: International Classification of Primary Care. 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press; 1998.
    1. StataCorp . Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX, Stata Corporation; 2001.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere