Cited by 149Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeSurvey Methodology and NonresponsePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

A comparison of two methods of collecting economic data in primary care

Patel, Anita, Rendu, Alison, Moran, Paul, Leese, Morven, Mann, Anthony, Knapp, Martin·2005·Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There have been few attempts to assess alternative methods of collecting resource use data for economic evaluations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare two methods of collecting resource use data in primary care: GPs' case records and a self-complete postal questionnaire. METHODS: 303 primary care attenders were sent a postal survey, incorporating a questionnaire designed to collect service utilisation information for the previous six months. Data were also collected from GP case records. The reporting of GP visits between the two methods, and estimates of costs associated with those visits, were compared. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the number of GP visits recorded on GP case records (mean 3.03) and on the CSRI (mean 2.99) (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.756). In contrast, estimates of average costs of visits from CSRI data were higher and had greater variance compared to case record-based costs (54.63 pound sterling versus 42.37 pound sterling; P = 0.003). This may be explained by differences in average visit length (11.66 versus 9.36 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows good agreement between GP case records and a self-complete questionnaire for the reporting of GP visits. However, differences in costs associated with those visits arose due to differences in the method used for calculating length of visit.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cmi027

Cites

20 of 20 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

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patel, A., Rendu, A., Moran, P., Leese, M., Mann, A., & Knapp, M.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
Patel, Anita
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2005-04-11
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
323-327
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2170967664
Cited by
149
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
primary care, postal questionnaires, service utilization, visit duration, economic evaluation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cost Allocation, Family Practice, Female, Humans, London, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, State Medicine, Health Care Surveys

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