Cited by 93Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Self-reports of health-care utilization: Diary or questionnaire?

van den Brink, Mandy, van den Hout, Wilbert B., Stiggelbout, Anne M., Putter, Hein, van de Velde, Cornelis J. H., Kievit, Job·2005·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract

Objectives:The feasibility and convergent validity of a cost diary and a cost questionnaire was investigated. Methods:Data were obtained as part of a cost-utility analysis alongside a multicenter clinical trial in patients with resectable rectal cancer. A sample of 107 patients from 30 hospitals was asked to keep a weekly diary during the first 3 months after surgery, and a monthly diary from 3 to 12 months after surgery. A second sample of seventy-two patients from twenty-eight hospitals in the trial received a questionnaire at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, referring to the previous 3 or 6 months. Format and items of the questions were similar and included a wide range of medical and nonmedical items and costs after hospitalization for surgery. Results:Small differences were found with respect to nonresponse (range, 79 to 86 percent) and missing questions (range, 1 to 6 percent between the diary and questionnaire). For most estimates of volumes of care and of costs, the diary and questionnaire did not differ significantly. Total 3-month nonhospital costs were €1,860, €1,280, and €1,050 in the diary sample and €1,860, €1,090, and €840 in the questionnaire sample at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively (p=.50). However, with respect to open questions, the diary sample tended to report significantly more care. Conclusions:For the assessment of health-care utilization in economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, a cost questionnaire with structured closed questions may replace a cost diary for recall periods up to 6 months.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266462305050397

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Brink, M., van den Hout, W. B., Stiggelbout, A. M., Putter, H., van de Velde, C. J. H., & Kievit, J.
Affiliations
Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Published
2005-07
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
298-304
ISSN
  • 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6348
OpenAlex
W2092589631
Cited by
93
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
health care utilization, resectable rectal cancer, postoperative care costs, recall period, convergent validity, cost-utility analysis, economic evaluation
MeSH terms
Colectomy, Costs and Cost Analysis, Data Collection, Female, Health Services, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rectal Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Multicenter Studies as Topic

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