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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1193

Cites

8 of 8 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Shiffman, 2001, Subject experience diaries in clinical research. Part 1. The patient experience movement, Appl Clin Trials, 10, 46

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 807

Metadata

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