Self-reports of health care utilization compared to provider records
Abstract
This study compares self-reports of medical utilization with provider records. As part of a chronic disease self-management intervention study, patients completed self-reports of their last six months of health care utilization. A subgroup of patients was selected from the larger study and their self-reports of utilization were compared to computerized utilization records. Consistent with earlier studies, patients tended to report less physician utilization than was recorded in the computerized provider records. However, they also tended to report slightly more emergency room visits than were reported in the computerized utilization records. There was no association between demographic or health variables and the tendency toward discrepancy between self-report and computerized utilization record reports. However, there was a tendency for the discrepancy to increase as the amount of record utilization increased. Thus, the likelihood of bias caused by differing demographic factors is low, but researchers should take into account that underreporting occurs and is likely to increase as utilization increases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Self-reported health care use shows high agreement with medical records and administrative claims.
“However, the validity of self-reported health care use has been replicated in a range of samples, where self-reported health care use shows high agreement with medical records and administrative claims (46 -48).”
From Purpose in life and use of preventive health care services (2014) · cites this paper as [47]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 10 · Cited by 401
- Authors
- Ritter, P. L., Stewart, A. L., Kaymaz, H., Sobel, D. S., Block, D. A., & Lorig, K. R.
- Affiliations
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- St. Mary's Medical Center (US)
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ritter, Philip L
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 136-141
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1993579510
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 42.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program
- Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (5RO1 HS06680)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Keywords
- data discrepancies, underreporting, chronic disease self-management, emergency department visits, physician visits, measurement bias
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Health Maintenance Organizations, Health Services, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Utilization Review, Bias, Medical Records Systems, Computerized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review