Cited by 679Clinical practice guidelines implementationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseHealth Sciences Research and Education

Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines

Adams, A., Soumerai, S., Lomas, J, Ross-Degnan, D·1999·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

Objective To assess trends in the use of self-report measures in research on adherence to practice guidelines since 1980, and to determine the impact of response bias on the validity of self-reports as measures of quality of care. Methods We conducted a MEDLINE search using defined search terms for the period 1980 to 1996. Included studies evaluated the adherence of clinicians to practice guidelines, official policies, or other evidence-based recommendations. Among studies containing both self-report (e.g. interviews) and objective measures of adherence (e.g. medical records), we compared self-reported and objective adherence rates (measured as per cent adherence). Evidence of response bias was defined as self-reported adherence significantly exceeding the objective measure at the 5% level. Results We identified 326 studies of guideline adherence. The use of self-report measures of adherence increased from 18% of studies in 1980 to 41% of studies in 1985. Of the 10 studies that used both self-report and objective measures, eight supported the existence of response bias in all self-reported measures. In 87% of 37 comparisons, self-reported adherence rates exceeded the objective rates, resulting in a median over-estimation of adherence of 27% (absolute difference). Conclusions Although self-reports may provide information regarding clinicians' knowledge of guideline recommendations, they are subject to bias and should not be used as the sole measure of guideline adherence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/intqhc/11.3.187

Cites

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?

  • Self-reported adherence is simple and cost-effective but prone to recall and social desirability bias.

    “Self-reported adherence is simple and cost-effective but prone to recall and social desirability bias.130,131,133,134”

    From Adherence to PCSK9 Inhibitors in Clinical Practice (2026) · cites this paper as [133]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adams, A., Soumerai, S., Lomas, J., & Ross-Degnan, D.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CA)
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
1999-06-01
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
187-192
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W2074448530
Cited by
679
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 36
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (5R18HS07357)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
self-report bias, response bias, guideline adherence, clinical guidelines, quality of care, evidence-based medicine
MeSH terms
Humans, Interviews as Topic, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence

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