BACKGROUND: There have been few attempts to assess alternative methods of collecting resource use data for economic evaluations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare two methods of collecting resource use data in primary care: GPs' case records and a self-complete postal questionnaire. METHODS: 303 primary care attenders were sent a postal survey, incorporating a questionnaire designed to collect service utilisation information for the previous six months. Data were also collected from GP case records. The reporting of GP visits between the two methods, and estimates of costs associated with those visits, were compared. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the number of GP visits recorded on GP case records (mean 3.03) and on the CSRI (mean 2.99) (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.756). In contrast, estimates of average costs of visits from CSRI data were higher and had greater variance compared to case record-based costs (54.63 pound sterling versus 42.37 pound sterling; P = 0.003). This may be explained by differences in average visit length (11.66 versus 9.36 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows good agreement between GP case records and a self-complete questionnaire for the reporting of GP visits. However, differences in costs associated with those visits arose due to differences in the method used for calculating length of visit.
BACKGROUND: There have been few attempts to assess alternative methods of collecting resource use data for economic evaluations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare two methods of collecting resource use data in primary care: GPs' case records and a self-complete postal questionnaire. METHODS: 303 primary care attenders were sent a postal survey, incorporating a questionnaire designed to collect service utilisation information for the previous six months. Data were also collected from GP case records. The reporting of GP visits between the two methods, and estimates of costs associated with those visits, were compared. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the number of GP visits recorded on GP case records (mean 3.03) and on the CSRI (mean 2.99) (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.756). In contrast, estimates of average costs of visits from CSRI data were higher and had greater variance compared to case record-based costs (54.63 pound sterling versus 42.37 pound sterling; P = 0.003). This may be explained by differences in average visit length (11.66 versus 9.36 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows good agreement between GP case records and a self-complete questionnaire for the reporting of GP visits. However, differences in costs associated with those visits arose due to differences in the method used for calculating length of visit.
Authors: Cornelius B Groenewald; Bonnie S Essner; Davene Wright; Megan D Fesinmeyer; Tonya M Palermo Journal: J Pain Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Rhiannon T Edwards; Richard D Neal; Pat Linck; Nigel Bruce; Linda Mullock; Nick Nelhans; Diana Pasterfield; Daphne Russell; Ian Russell; Louise Woodfine Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Barbara Gomes; Paul McCrone; Sue Hall; Julia Riley; Jonathan Koffman; Irene J Higginson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-06-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Erik Andersson; Brjánn Ljótsson; Filip Smit; Björn Paxling; Erik Hedman; Nils Lindefors; Gerhard Andersson; Christian Rück Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: R Sabes-Figuera; P McCrone; J Sharac; E Csipke; T K J Craig; D S Rose; D Pearman; T Wykes Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Paul McCrone; Michael Sharpe; Trudie Chalder; Martin Knapp; Anthony L Johnson; Kimberley A Goldsmith; Peter D White Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ramon Sabes-Figuera; Paul McCrone; Mike Hurley; Michael King; Ana Nora Donaldson; Leone Ridsdale Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 2.655