Hello Everyone,
I am trying to understand why the OMOP CDM person table doesn’t have a marital_status column?
Is it not really useful for observational research?
The PERSON table contains constant information about a person. ID, birthday, gender, race, that kind of thing. It’s not perfectly so, but that’s the model. While the spouses come and go, at least for some people. Information that is fluid like that goes into the OBSERVATION table. There you can store marital status no problem.
1 Like
Well, we could use the ONE AND ONLY marital standard concept.
See query here
https://athena.ohdsi.org/search-terms/terms?invalidReason=Valid&standardConcept=Standard&page=1&pageSize=15&query=marital+status&boosts
LOINC, SNOMED and ALL-OF-US
and phenx inside LOINC
Nice example of some syntax standardization but still no “deep standardization”. So we have OMOP as syntax but it still leaves room for a “semantic mess”.
Looking at value sets for LOINC (another PPI “duplication” here)
for SNOMED - no value sets defined.
for PhenX (not a very good set)
Looking more at SNOMED - going up from married to
Athena (e.g., engaged) (more granular)
The only way to decide a winner is by OHDS ConceptPrevalence network study. Let the collective vote and judgement of sites decide the winner.
Was there ever a consensus on which codeset for marital status is the standard? i.e. LOINC, SNOMED, etc? Curious if the hl7 codeset could be considered? Valueset-marital-status - FHIR v4.3.0
No, there aren’t any conventions for marital status in the CDM. I’ve created a Themis GitHub issue here. Stay tuned for an updated convention!
1 Like