Cited by 810Survey Methodology and NonresponseMedication Adherence and ComplianceElectronic Health Records Systems

Patient non-compliance with paper diaries

Open access
Stone, Arthur A, Shiffman, Saul, Schwartz, Joseph E, Broderick, Joan E, Hufford, Michael R·2002·BMJ

Abstract

Doctors often ask patients to recall recent health experiences, such as pain, fatigue, and quality of life. 1 Research has shown, however, that recall is unreliable and rife with inaccuracies and biases. 2 Recognition of recall's shortcomings has led to the use of diaries, which are intended to capture experiences close to the time of occurrence, thus limiting recall bias and producing more accurate data.3 The rationale for using diaries would be undermined if patients failed to complete diaries according to protocol.In this study we used a newly developed paper diary that could objectively record when patients made diary entries in order to compare patients' reported and actual compliance with diary keeping.For comparison, we also used an electronic diary designed to enhance compliance in order to assess what compliance rates might be achieved.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1193

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • In the only study that objectively measured dietary self-monitoring adherence, there was little concordance between self-reported and electronically documented data.

    “The electronic data were compared to the self-reported record of self-monitoring and revealed that there was little concordance between the self-reported and electronically documented data (35, 37).”

    From Self-monitoring in weight loss: a systematic review of the literature (2011) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Methods and results report a large discrepancy between reported paper-diary compliance (90%) and compliance documented by electronic sensors (11%). However, this was a study of pain diaries in adults with chronic pain, not dietary self-monitoring; the paper also does not establish that it was the only study to measure adherence objectively. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]3. Shiffman S, Hufford M, Paty J. Subject experience diaries in clinical research. Part 1. The patient experience movement. Appl Clin Trials 2001;10:46-56.
  2. [6]6. Pryor DB, Califf RM, Harrell FE, Hlatky MA, Lee KL, Mark DB, et al. Clinical databases. Accomplishments and unrealized potential. Med Care 1985;23:623-47.
  3. [9]9. Department of Health. Learning from Bristol: The Department of Health's response to the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995. London: DoH, 2002 (www.doh.gov.uk/bristolinquiryresponse/). BMJ 2002;324:1194 Information in practice 1194 BMJ VOLUME 324 18 MAY 2002 bmj.com on 19 December 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://www.bmj.com/ BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1193 on 18 May 2002. Downloaded from

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Hufford, M. R.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Stone, Arthur A
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-05-18
Volume
324
Issue
7347
Pages
1193-1194
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2135374245
Cited by
810
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 38
FWCI
135.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA085819, CA-85819)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
medication adherence, paper diaries, electronic diary, recall bias, patient-reported outcomes, self-monitoring
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Medical Records, Intractable Pain, Treatment Refusal

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