The impact of recall periods on reported morbidity and health seeking behavior

Das, Jishnu; Hammer, Jeffrey S.; Sánchez-Páramo, Carolina

doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.07.001

Cited by 128 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The severe under-reporting of morbidity was consistent with a study in India examining how different recall periods affect reporting [7]. Since morbidity acts as the standard screening question prior to asking about health seeking behaviour in household surveys, this result inevitably implies substantial under-reporting of healthcare use.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…b There is a suggestion in the paper by Das et al (2012) that much of what is underreported in household surveys when the recall period is relatively long are the less severe illnesses associated with smaller household expenditures [7]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is well documented, for example, that poorer individuals are less likely to report illness even though they experience greater morbidity [6]. A recent study in India experimentally assigned households to surveys with weekly and monthly recall periods, finding that the recall period had a large effect on reported morbidity, doctor visits and self-medication [7]. The impacts were particularly large for poorer households and those with a high burden of disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can we trust measures of healthcare utilization from household surveys?

Ansah

Powell‐Jackson

2013

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe research community relies heavily on measures of healthcare utilization from household surveys to understand health seeking choices and to evaluate interventions in developing countries. Such measures are known to suffer from recall problems but there is limited evidence of whether the method of data collection affects evaluation findings. We compared the results of a randomized trial of free healthcare using utilization data from two sources.MethodsData are from a study in Ghana, in which 2,194 households containing 2,592 children under 5 y old were randomized into a prepayment scheme providing free primary and some referral care, or to a control group whose families paid user fees for healthcare. Data on morbidity and health seeking behaviour were collected using a standard household survey administered at endline and a pictorial diary given to households over a six month period, collected at monthly intervals.ResultsSelf-reported measures of morbidity and healthcare utilization were substantially lower in the household survey than the pictorial diary when the recall period was over a month. Introducing free healthcare had a positive effect on primary care visits based on the pictorial diary and a non-significant negative effect according to the household survey. Using any clinic visit in the past month as the outcome, the difference in the effect of free care between the two data collection methods was 3.6 percentage points (p = 0.078).ConclusionsThe findings raise methodological concerns about measures of healthcare utilization from household surveys, particularly in the evaluation of health financing interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can we trust measures of healthcare utilization from household surveys?

Ansah

Powell‐Jackson

2013

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Poor recall quality in the household surveys is a potential concern, although we followed the methods of the well regarded Demographic and Health Surveys' "fertility roster" to collect these retrospective data. 20 The degree of recall error is also unlikely to be related to the implementation of the Chiranjeevi Yojana programme.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect ofChiranjeevi Yojanaon institutional deliveries and neonatal and maternal outcomes in Gujarat, India: a difference-in-differences analysis

Mohanan

Bauhoff

Forgia

et al. 2013

Bull. World Health Organ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Measures of clinical protocol based on direct observations are subject to Hawthorne effects whereby providers may change their behavior when they know they are being observed [21]; they may also be confounded by differences in case or patient-‐mix across providers. Finally, household surveys rely on accurate recall of specific clinical practices and although recall biases in these household surveys has not been evaluated (to our knowledge), research in other settings shows little correlation between providers’ actions in clinics and what patients themselves say in exit surveys as well a large recall biases in household reports of doctor visits and health expenditures [22, 23]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries

Coarasa¹,

Das

Gummerson

et al. 2017

Global Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC.

show abstract

The impact of recall periods on reported morbidity and health seeking behavior

Cited by 128 publications

References 13 publications

Can we trust measures of healthcare utilization from household surveys?

Can we trust measures of healthcare utilization from household surveys?

Effect ofChiranjeevi Yojanaon institutional deliveries and neonatal and maternal outcomes in Gujarat, India: a difference-in-differences analysis

A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About