Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 675

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Mortality and Healthcare Utilization with a Single Question

Open access
DeSalvo, Karen B., Fan, Vincent S., McDonell, Mary B., Fihn, Stephan D.·2005·Health Services Research

Abstract

Objective. We compared single‐ and multi‐item measures of general self‐rated health (GSRH) to predict mortality and clinical events a large population of veteran patients. Data Source/Study Setting. We analyzed prospective cohort data collected from 21,732 patients as part of the Veterans Affairs Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP), a randomized controlled trial investigating quality‐of‐care interventions. Study Design. We created an age‐adjusted, logistic regression model for each predictor and outcome combination, and estimated the odds of events by response category of the GSRH question and compared the discriminative ability of the predictors by developing receiver operator characteristic curves and comparing the associated area under the curve (AUC)/c‐statistic for the single‐ and multi‐item measures. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. All patients were sent a baseline assessment that included a multi‐item measure of general health, the 36‐item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF‐36), and an inventory of comorbid conditions. We compared the predictive and discriminative ability of the GSRH to the SF‐36 physical component score (PCS), the mental component score (MCS), and the Seattle index of comorbidity (SIC). The GSRH is an item included in the SF‐36, with the wording: “In general, would you say your health is: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor?” Principal Findings. The GSRH, PCS, and SIC had comparable AUC for predicting mortality (AUC 0.74, 0.73, and 0.73, respectively); hospitalization (AUC 0.63, 0.64, and 0.60, respectively); and high outpatient use (AUC 0.61, 0.61, and 0.60, respectively). The MCS had statistically poorer discriminatory performance for mortality and hospitalization than any other other predictors (p<.001). Conclusions. The GSRH response categories can be used to stratify patients with varying risks for adverse outcomes. Patients reporting “poor” health are at significantly greater odds of dying or requiring health care resources compared with their peers. The GSRH, collectable at the point of care, is comparable with longer instruments.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00404.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 675

Metadata

Authors
DeSalvo, K. B., Fan, V. S., McDonell, M. B., & Fihn, S. D.
Venue
Health Services Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04-26
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
1234-1246
ISSN
  • 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6773
OpenAlex
W2099590875
Cited by
675
References
5
FWCI
44.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting Mortality and Healthcare Utilization with a Single Question. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00404.x
The paper
DeSalvo, K. B., Fan, V. S., McDonell, M. B., & Fihn, S. D. (2005). Predicting Mortality and Healthcare Utilization with a Single Question. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00404.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.