Background

Previous studies have observed that haemoglobin concentrations can be affected by type of blood collection, analysis methods and device, and that near-in-time population-based surveys report substantially different anaemia prevalence. We investigated whether differences in mean haemoglobin or prevalence of anaemia between near-in-time surveys of the same population were associated with differences in type of blood collection or analytic approach to haemoglobin measurement.

Methods

We systematically identified pairs of population-based surveys that measured haemoglobin in the same population of women of reproductive age (WRA) or preschool-aged children (PSC). Surveys were matched on geographic coverage, urban/rural place of residence, inclusion of pregnant women, time of data collection (within 18 months), and, to the extent feasible, age range. Differences in anaemia prevalence were presented graphically. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression of difference in mean haemoglobin were carried out, with subgroups defined by comparison of type of blood collection and analytic approach within each survey pair.

Results

We included 23 survey pairs from 17 countries for PSC and 17 survey pairs from 11 countries for WRA. Meta-regression indicates that surveys measuring haemoglobin with HemoCue® Hb 301 found higher haemoglobin concentrations than near-in-time surveys using HemoCue® Hb 201+ in non-pregnant women ((NPW); 5.8 g/L (95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.2-8.3) mean difference, n = 5 pairs) and PSC (4.3 g/L (1.4-7.2), n = 6). Surveys collecting venous blood found higher haemoglobin concentrations than near-in-time surveys collecting capillary blood in PSC (3.8 g/L (0.8-6.7), n = 8), but not NPW (0.4 g/L (-1.9-2.8), n = 9).

Conclusions

Because this study is observational, differences in haemoglobin concentrations in near-in-time surveys may be caused by other factors associated with choice of analytic approach or type of blood collected. The source or sources of differences should be clarified to improve use of surveys to prioritize and evaluate public health programs.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42022296553.

Background

To ensure that National Institutes of Health-funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.

Methods

EMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.

Results

Cancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.

Conclusions

Catchment area definitions and the collection of patient-level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States.