Cited by 96Survey Methodology and NonresponseMedical Coding and Health InformationHealth and Medical Studies

Sensitivity of household reported medical conditions in the medical expenditure panel survey

Machlin, Steven, Cohen, Joel, Elixhauser, Anne, Beauregard, Karen, Steiner, Claudia·2009·Medical Care

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Accurate survey data on medical conditions are critical for health care researchers. Although medical condition data are complex and are subject to reporting error, little information exists on the quality of household reported condition data. METHODS: We used pooled data from 4 years (2002-2005) of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to estimate the extent to which household respondents may underreport 23 types of medical conditions. The medical expenditure panel survey is a nationally representative annual survey of approximately 15,000 households which collects medical condition information in 2 separate components-the Household Component (HC) and the Medical Provider Component (MPC). We computed sensitivity rates based on linked HC and MPC data under the assumption that if collection of medical conditions from household respondents was complete, then the conditions reported in the MPC would also be reported in the HC. RESULTS: Sensitivity rates ranged from a high of 93.8% to a low of 37.4% and were 75% or higher for 10 of the 23 conditions analyzed. The overall sensitivity rate for the 23 conditions combined was 74%. CONCLUSIONS: Household reports tended to be more accurate for conditions that are highly salient, cause pain, require hospitalization, require ongoing treatment, have specific recognizable treatment, alter lifestyle, and/or affect daily life (eg, pregnancy, diabetes, and kidney stones). In addition, reporting generally was better when conditions are classified in broader categories rather than in more detail.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e318195fa79

Cites

8 of 8 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 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Machlin, S., Cohen, J., Elixhauser, A., Beauregard, K., & Steiner, C.
Affiliations
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
Corresponding author
Machlin, Steven
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2009-06
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
618-625
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031950852
Cited by
96
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
25.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Studies
Keywords
underreporting, survey data quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, chronic disease, diabetes mellitus, pregnancy, kidney stones
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Chronic Disease, Health Expenditures, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Sensitivity and Specificity, Models, Economic

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