Cited by 433Workplace Health and Well-beingMedical Coding and Health InformationOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

How accurate are self-reports? Analysis of self-reported health care utilization and absence when compared with administrative data

Open access
Short, Meghan E., Goetzel, Ron Z., Pei, Xiaofei, Tabrizi, Maryam J., Ozminkowski, Ronald J., Gibson, Teresa B., DeJoy, Dave M., Wilson, Mark G.·2009·Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of self-reported health care utilization and absence reported on health risk assessments against administrative claims and human resource records. METHODS: Self-reported values of health care utilization and absenteeism were analyzed for concordance to administrative claims values. Percent agreement, Pearson's correlations, and multivariate logistic regression models examined the level of agreement and characteristics of participants with concordance. RESULTS: Self-report and administrative data showed greater concordance for monthly compared with yearly health care utilization metrics. Percent agreement ranged from 30% to 99% with annual doctor visits having the lowest percent agreement. Younger people, males, those with higher education, and healthier individuals more accurately reported their health care utilization and absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported health care utilization and absenteeism may be used as a proxy when medical claims and administrative data are unavailable, particularly for shorter recall periods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/jom.0b013e3181a86671

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]Dasinger LK Krause N Deegan LJ Brand RJ Rudolph L Duration of work disability after low back injury: a comparison of administrative and self-reported outcomes Am J Ind Med 1999 35 619 631 10332515

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Short, M. E., Goetzel, R. Z., Pei, X., Tabrizi, M. J., Ozminkowski, R. J., Gibson, T. B., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Goetzel, Ron Z.
Venue
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Published
2009-07
Volume
51
Issue
7
Pages
786-796
ISSN
1076-2752 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977234765
Cited by
433
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
13.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Dow Chemical Company
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL079546)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
self-report accuracy, health care utilization, absenteeism, health risk assessment, administrative claims data, concordance, recall period, proxy data
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Self Disclosure, Reproducibility of Results, Confidence Intervals

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