Just keep them alive, ok?Ĥ0664614 Smoking status and exposure to second hand smoke in the home not assessed, reason not givenĪlso, you map the contextual facts. Some negative facts simply confirm that patient doesn’t smoke or mean nothing. How would ETL treat it? So unless we have a MAPPING table set, it’s also manual work.Ĥ0770347 Have you ever smoked regularly Ĥ0766305 Have you ever smoked part or all of a cigarette Ĥ0766943 Do or did you inhale the cigar smoke Would it be “Maps to”? You can’t just map the questions. Do we want all this in the 'Smoker” cohort?Īnother thing is the survey data/classification terms you map to the “Smoker” concepts. It’s pretty the same as “Passive” is a “Smoker, where “Passive” means not just a fact, but also a risk of exposure (according to mapping). Isn’t such an assumption in the terminoly is a reason for that?Īt least, a distinct category is needed to set the borderline between “1 cigarette per week/month/year” and “0-1 cigarette per day”. What about occasional/social smoking? You map it to “Smoker”, but I wouldn’t do. In particular, let us know if the omissions make + cigarette frequency per day definition is Please think and discuss, and let us know. The latter might cause some stress with folks (as usual flavors of null do). Overall time of smoking (irrespective of strength).Here is what we are not modeling, mostly because we didn’t actually find that many concepts: Again, unless the Observation Period covers this period of time it might be “History of”. The “in utero” and “perinatal” are usually only combined with “Smoking” and “Cigarette”. Alternatively, we relegate those to “History of”. The big one is “ex”, meaning the smoking behavior is in remission but happened in the past. One thing we need to discuss is should we create additional concepts where we combine all of these with the various timings. The resulting hierarchy is much simpler than expected: Timing: ex (=in remission), in utero, perinatal.Amount as above: trivial, light, moderate, heavy, very heavy.Type: hookah pipe, cigarette, moist tobacco, chewed tobacco, smokeless, pipe, passive, electronic cigarette, cigar and snuff.This means we have the following dimensions: If the source concept is mentioning one of the five frequencies without the type we automatically assume cigarettes. Source concepts that ask for exact number per day or week need to be manually mapped to these five categories. We don’t need the exact number of cigarettes (it is probably false precision anyway). The cigarette frequency per day definition is: Only cigarette frequency is measured in the existing Concepts, cigars, pipes and hookahs almost never are.Second hand smoking and passive smoking is treated the same.Water pipes, shishas and hookahs as identical.Nicotine replacement therapy are due to nicotine abuse, but still not the same thing, and therefore out.They are separate conditions, and we don’t know how the nicotine came into the body, and whether that was an acute event, rather than smoking. All sorts of toxic effects, sequelae of nicotine abuse and allergies are out.All non-nicotine smoke (or electronic version of that) is out, such as smoking illicit or legal drugs and marijuana.Even though there are electronic cigarettes, which really are not smoke, in reality these are used that way. We treat tobacco, smoking and nicotine dependence as synonyms.We are proposing a new hierarchy making the following assumptions: For example, heavy smoker does not get applied to, say, pipe or hookah. it turned out the variety of attributes and their combinations are not that large, really. After reviewing all the existing concepts containing “smoke”, “nicotine”, “cigarette” etc. Eventually, we started a version of smoking hierarchy. ![]() We have been discussing this for a while.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |