Literature DB >> 29968290

Accuracy of patient recall for self-reported doctor visits: Is shorter recall better?

Kim Dalziel1, Jinhu Li2, Anthony Scott2, Philip Clarke1.   

Abstract

In health economics, the use of patient recall of health care utilisation information is common, including in national health surveys. However, the types and magnitude of measurement error that relate to different recall periods are not well understood. This study assessed the accuracy of recalled doctor visits over 2-week, 3-month, and 12-month periods by comparing self-report with routine administrative Australian Medicare data. Approximately 5,000 patients enrolled in an Australian study were pseudo-randomised using birth dates to report visits to a doctor over three separate recall periods. When comparing patient recall with visits recorded in administrative information from Medicare Australia, both bias and variance were minimised for the 12-month recall period. This may reflect telescoping that occurs with shorter recall periods (participants pulling in important events that fall outside the period). Using shorter recall periods scaled to represent longer periods is likely to bias results. There were associations between recall error and patient characteristics. The impact of recall error is demonstrated with a cost-effectiveness analysis using costs of doctor visits and a regression example predicting number of doctor visits. The findings have important implications for surveying health service utilisation for use in economic evaluation, econometric analyses, and routine national health surveys.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  doctor visits; health care utilisation; health surveys; memory; recall; self-report

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29968290     DOI: 10.1002/hec.3794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  10 in total

1.  Differences in Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey Scores by Recency of the Last Visit: Implications for Comparability of Periodic and Continuous Sampling.

Authors:  Claude M Setodji; Q Burkhart; Ron D Hays; Denise D Quigley; Samuel A Skootsky; Marc N Elliott
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Problem-solving skills training in adult cancer survivors: Bright IDEAS-AC pilot study.

Authors:  Katia Noyes; Alaina L Zapf; Rachel M Depner; Tessa Flores; Alissa Huston; Hani H Rashid; Demetria McNeal; Louis S Constine; Fergal J Fleming; Gregory E Wilding; Olle Jane Z Sahler
Journal:  Cancer Treat Res Commun       Date:  2022-03-25

3.  Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure in Australia: trends, inequalities and the impact on household living standards in a high-income country with a universal health care system.

Authors:  Emily J Callander; Haylee Fox; Daniel Lindsay
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2019-03-11

4.  Patient-Reported Adverse Events of Radiopharmaceuticals: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire.

Authors:  Nanno Schreuder; Quincy de Hoog; Sieta T de Vries; Pieter L Jager; Jos G W Kosterink; Eugène P van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 5.  Understanding cost data collection tools to improve economic evaluations of health interventions.

Authors:  John M Chapel; Guijing Wang
Journal:  Stroke Vasc Neurol       Date:  2019-12-01

6.  Unequal consequences of Covid 19: representative evidence from six countries.

Authors:  Michèle Belot; Syngjoo Choi; Egon Tripodi; Eline van den Broek-Altenburg; Julian C Jamison; Nicholas W Papageorge
Journal:  Rev Econ Househ       Date:  2021-04-07

7.  Socioeconomic Disparities in the Demand for and Use of Virtual Visits Among Senior Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Ellie Yu; Simon Hagens
Journal:  JMIR Aging       Date:  2022-03-22

8.  Investigating households' out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures based on number of chronic conditions in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study using quantile regression approach.

Authors:  Ziyad S Almalki; Abdullah K Alahmari; Ahmed M Alshehri; Abdulaziz Altowaijri; Mohammed Alluhidan; Nehad Ahmed; Abdulhakim S AlAbdulsalam; Khalid H Alsaiari; Meshari A Alrashidi; Abdulrahman G Alghusn; Ali S Alqahtani; Abdulaziz I Alzarea; Mona A Alanazi; Abdulhadi M Alqahtani
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  Moral hazard and selection for voluntary deductibles.

Authors:  Rob J M Alessie; Viola Angelini; Jochen O Mierau; Laura Viluma
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Economic evaluation of an Australian nurse home visiting programme: a randomised trial at 3 years.

Authors:  Shalika Bohingamu Mudiyanselage; Anna M H Price; Fiona K Mensah; Hannah E Bryson; Susan Perlen; Francesca Orsini; Harriet Hiscock; Penelope Dakin; Diana Harris; Kristy Noble; Tracey Bruce; Lynn Kemp; Sharon Goldfeld; Lisa Gold
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.