OBJECTIVE: To critically review the literature concerning the accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease among the general population. METHOD: A literature search was conducted on three major health research databases: MEDLINE, HealthPLAN, and PsychLit. The bibliographies of located articles were also checked for additional relevant references. Studies meeting the following five inclusion criteria were included in the review: They were investigating the accuracy of self-report among the general population, as opposed to among clinical populations. They employed an adequate and appropriate gold standard. At least 70% of respondents consented to validation, where validation imposed minimal demands on the respondent; and 60% consent to validation was considered acceptable where validation imposed a greater burden. They had a sample size capable of estimating sensitivity and specificity rates with 95% confidence intervals of width +/-10%. The time lag between collection of the self-report and validation data for physical measures did not exceed one month. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 66 identified studies met all the inclusion criteria described above. In the vast majority, self-report data consistently underestimated the proportion of individuals considered "at-risk." Similarly, community prevalences of risk factors were considerably higher according to gold standard data sources than they were according to self-report data. CONCLUSIONS: This review casts serious doubts on the wisdom of relying exclusively on self-reported health information. It suggests that caution should be exercised both when trying to identify at-risk individuals and when estimating the prevalence of risk factors among the general population. The review also suggests a number of ways in which the accuracy of individuals' self-reported health information can be maximized.
OBJECTIVE: To critically review the literature concerning the accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease among the general population. METHOD: A literature search was conducted on three major health research databases: MEDLINE, HealthPLAN, and PsychLit. The bibliographies of located articles were also checked for additional relevant references. Studies meeting the following five inclusion criteria were included in the review: They were investigating the accuracy of self-report among the general population, as opposed to among clinical populations. They employed an adequate and appropriate gold standard. At least 70% of respondents consented to validation, where validation imposed minimal demands on the respondent; and 60% consent to validation was considered acceptable where validation imposed a greater burden. They had a sample size capable of estimating sensitivity and specificity rates with 95% confidence intervals of width +/-10%. The time lag between collection of the self-report and validation data for physical measures did not exceed one month. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 66 identified studies met all the inclusion criteria described above. In the vast majority, self-report data consistently underestimated the proportion of individuals considered "at-risk." Similarly, community prevalences of risk factors were considerably higher according to gold standard data sources than they were according to self-report data. CONCLUSIONS: This review casts serious doubts on the wisdom of relying exclusively on self-reported health information. It suggests that caution should be exercised both when trying to identify at-risk individuals and when estimating the prevalence of risk factors among the general population. The review also suggests a number of ways in which the accuracy of individuals' self-reported health information can be maximized.
Authors: Douglas Shenson; Mary Adams; Julie Bolen; Karen Wooten; Juliana Clough; Wayne H Giles; Lynda Anderson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Joseph S Ross; Susannah M Bernheim; Elizabeth H Bradley; Hsun-Mei Teng; William T Gallo Journal: Prev Med Date: 2006-12-29 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Donald Musa; Richard Schulz; Roderick Harris; Myrna Silverman; Stephen B Thomas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kristi L Allgood; Garth H Rauscher; Steven Whitman; Giselle Vasquez-Jones; Ami M Shah Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Joseph Gerth; Tracy Becerra-Culqui; Andrew Bradlyn; Darios Getahun; Enid M Hunkeler; Timothy L Lash; Andrea Millman; Rebecca Nash; Virginia P Quinn; Brandi Robinson; Douglas Roblin; Michael J Silverberg; Vin Tangpricha; Suma Vupputuri; Michael Goodman Journal: Rev Endocr Metab Disord Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 6.514
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Anne Marie McCarthy; Chyke A Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ann G Zauber; William E Barlow Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Shawna V Hudson; Eric K Shaw; Jesse C Crosson; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lori Rolando; Daniel W Byrne; Paula W McGown; Ron Z Goetzel; Tom A Elasy; Mary I Yarbrough Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.162