Abstract
BackgroundThe evidence on the agreement between self-reported health resource use and administrative records is mixed and no gold standard exists. The objective of this study was to assess self-reported general practitioner (GP) and specialist doctor visits, as well as medication use via telephone interview against national insurance administrative data for colorectal cancer survivors.MethodsIn a sample of 76 adults recently diagnosed with colorectal cancer, data was abstracted from telephone survey items on GP visits, specialist visits and medication use over the previous six months and compared with data on the same individuals from administrative data. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess the reliability of frequency of visits and kappa statistics were derived for four broad categories of medicines used for gastrointestinal conditions, cardiovascular disease, psychological conditions and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Logistic regression was undertaken to assess factors associated with agreement (yes/no) between the two data sources for doctors’ visits.ResultsGood agreement was found for GP visits (ICC 0.62, 95%CI: 0.38, 0.86) and specialist visits (ICC 0.73, 95%CI: 0.56, 0.91) across the two data sources. When costs were assigned to frequencies, mean costs for the two methods were not significantly different over six months. Over-reporting was more common among men and participants with frequent doctor encounters. Large discrepancies between self-reports and administration records were found for broad types of medications used (44% agreement, kappa 0.13).ConclusionSelf-reported frequency of doctor’s visits using telephone interviews may be a reasonable substitute for administratively recorded data however, medication use by self-report appears to be unreliable. Administrative records are preferable to self-report for health service use in colorectal cancer survivors with high and complex service needs.
Highlights
The evidence on the agreement between self-reported health resource use and administrative records is mixed and no gold standard exists
The accurate estimation of these costs is crucial within economic analyses, there are no standardized methods for collecting the quantities of health service use at the patient level
There is currently no gold standard or benchmark many researchers suggest administrative records are more likely to be accurate for encounters with health services [2,3]
Summary
The evidence on the agreement between self-reported health resource use and administrative records is mixed and no gold standard exists. The accurate estimation of these costs is crucial within economic analyses, there are no standardized methods for collecting the quantities of health service use at the patient level. This is mostly because every study setting is unique, and the collection of this data is often constrained by the study design as well as. Self-reported methods are open to poor recall or memory decay, interpretation difficulties, and increased participant burden. These methods are often cheaper, more efficient, and useful when multiple health services and locations are used for a particular health condition. The availability of data linkage systems and electronic health records will facilitate large-scale, populationbased research and health service evaluation, subject to the issues of missing data, confidentiality and errors [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
