Agreement found between self-reported and health insurance data on physician visits comparing different recall lengths

Icks, Andrea; Dittrich, A; Brüne, Manuela; Kuß, Oliver; Hoyer, Annika; Haastert, Burkhard; Begun, Alexander; Andrich, Silke; Hoffmann, Jonas; Kaltheuner, Matthias; Chernyak, Nadja

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.10.009

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In regard to comparison of our results with other experiments, short recall was associated with over reporting and longer recall was associated with under reporting, which is consistent with a previous experiment involving recall of hospital use (Kjellsson et al, ). Our results are not consistent with the reporting of mean visits in the study of Icks et al (), as they show significant underreporting at 3 months (2.3 visits reported vs. 2.8 actual), whereas our results for the same recall period indicate over‐reporting (3.8 vs. 3.2), but they do also show that shorter recall periods produce more over‐reporting. More generally, we find that the overall proportion of patients who made any error increases as the length of the recall period increases, and the proportion of patients making errors is minimised in the 2‐week recall group.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a German study compared recall for two periods (3 and 6 months) by randomising 432 people with diabetes and asking them to recall physician visits reported in administrative insurance data. They found that although a 3‐month recall period produced more accurate results, there was a higher proportion of respondents who over‐reported and a lower proportion of respondents who under‐reported when compared with the 6‐month reporting period (Icks et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Dalziel

Scott

et al. 2018

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dalziel

Scott

et al. 2018

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All-cause healthcare utilization was assessed from standardized interviews and questionnaires at baseline and after 18 months. The reason for accessing care was not specified, while different time frames for each type of care were used in order to minimize recall bias 14. Outpatient care was defined by the number of outpatient physician visits in the previous three months.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Determinants of healthcare utilization and costs in COPD patients: first longitudinal results from the German COPD cohort COSYCONET</p>

Byng¹,

Lutter²,

Wacker³

et al. 2019

COPD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In light of overall increasing healthcare expenditures, it is mandatory to study determinants of future costs in chronic diseases. This study reports the first longitudinal results on healthcare utilization and associated costs from the German chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cohort COSYCONET. Material and methods Based on self-reported data of 1904 patients with COPD who attended the baseline and 18-month follow-up visits, direct costs were calculated for the 12 months preceding both examinations. Direct costs at follow-up were regressed on baseline disease severity and other co-variables to identify determinants of future costs. Change score models were developed to identify predictors of cost increases over 18 months. As possible predictors, models included GOLD grade, age, sex, education, smoking status, body mass index, comorbidity, years since COPD diagnosis, presence of symptoms, and exacerbation history. Results Inflation-adjusted mean annual direct costs increased by 5% (n.s., €6,739 to €7,091) between the two visits. Annual future costs were significantly higher in baseline GOLD grades 2, 3, and 4 (factors 1.24, 95%-confidence interval [1.07–1.43], 1.27 [1.09–1.48], 1.57 [1.27–1.93]). A history of moderate or severe exacerbations within 12 months, a comorbidity count >3, and the presence of dyspnea and underweight were significant predictors of cost increase (estimates ranging between + €887 and + €3,679, all p <0.05). Conclusions Higher GOLD grade, comorbidity burden, dyspnea and moderate or severe exacerbations were determinants of elevated future costs and cost increases in COPD. In addition we identified underweight as independent risk factor for an increase in direct healthcare costs over time.

show abstract

“…21,22 The higher challenge to recall frequent utilizations let us assume that the study more likely under-than overestimates the number of utilizations. 23 In the KORA study in a population aged 65 years and older, the self-reported number of physician visits underestimated true utilization by 70%. 22…”

Section: Study Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health care utilization in persons with spinal cord injury: part 1—outpatient services

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Agreement found between self-reported and health insurance data on physician visits comparing different recall lengths

Cited by 16 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

<p>Determinants of healthcare utilization and costs in COPD patients: first longitudinal results from the German COPD cohort COSYCONET</p>

Health care utilization in persons with spinal cord injury: part 1—outpatient services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About