Evaluation of linkage between health, education and social care administrative data for 21 million children in England

Background Population-level administrative data cohorts hold huge potential for generating evidence to improve child health. Understanding the quality of these data is critical to enabling us to fully realise this potential. We aimed to evaluate linkage between children's health, education and social care administrative records (ECHILD) to identify possible sources of bias. Methods We created four cohorts to understand the drivers of inclusion/exclusion within ECHILD. For each cohort, we calculated the linkage rate by counting the total number of eligible individuals who appeared in the ECHILD linkage spine and any of the corresponding hospital/school component datasets. We then assessed whether linkage rates varied according to sociodemographic characteristics (year of birth, sex, ethnicity, region). Results ECHILD currently captures 34.2 million patients and 25.3 million pupils born between September 1984 and March 2023, aged 0-38 years. Over 90% of children with hospital birth records linked to a school record (rising to 93% for those born from 2014 onwards); 88% of children attending school in 2001/02 linked to a patient record (rising to 96% for those born in 2019/20), resulting in a total of 21 million linked individuals. Substantial variation existed between sociodemographic groups, with those living in London, residing in more deprived areas, or with recorded ethnicity other than White being less likely to be included. Conclusions Population-level datasets such as ECHILD often under-represent specific groups. Irrespective of the mechanisms by which individuals are excluded (e.g. opt outs, linkage errors or not interacting with services), those in minoritised ethnic groups and those living in more deprived areas are most affected. Linkage evaluations are critical for understanding who is and who is not included in analyses of these data so that researchers can account for potential sources of bias within analyses.