Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2007
Do people self-reporting information about chronic respiratory disease have corroborative evidence in their general practice medical records? A study of intermethod reliability.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iversen Lisa, Hannaford Philip C, Godden David J, Price David
Аннотация
AIMS: To use intermethod reliability to compare self-reported data about chronic respiratory disease and health service utilisation with data contained in general practice medical records.
METHODS: Self-reported postal questionnaire information from a small cohort of an age-sex stratified sample of 2318 patients was compared with information contained in their medical records. The agreement between the two sources of information was assessed.
RESULTS: The case notes of 115/135 individuals from eight general practices were examined. For self-reported chest injury or operation (kappa, kappa=-0.03), or chronic bronchitis (kappa=0.10), agreement was poor. Agreement for self-reported pleurisy (kappa=0.32), hay fever or rhinitis (kappa=0.40), or eczema or dermatitis (kappa=0.30) was fair; for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema (kappa=0.56), or heart trouble (kappa=0.54), agreement was moderate; for asthma (kappa=0.78) or pneumonia (kappa=0.62), agreement was good; and for pulmonary tuberculosis (kappa=0.88), agreement was very good. The strength of agreement for information about health service utilisation for respiratory problems ranged from moderate to very good and was good for smoking status.
CONCLUSIONS: Although based on small numbers, our results suggest good or very good agreement between self-reported data and general practice medical records for the absence or presence of some respiratory conditions and some types of respiratory-related health care utilisation. Depending on the research question being examined self-reported information may be appropriate.
METHODS: Self-reported postal questionnaire information from a small cohort of an age-sex stratified sample of 2318 patients was compared with information contained in their medical records. The agreement between the two sources of information was assessed.
RESULTS: The case notes of 115/135 individuals from eight general practices were examined. For self-reported chest injury or operation (kappa, kappa=-0.03), or chronic bronchitis (kappa=0.10), agreement was poor. Agreement for self-reported pleurisy (kappa=0.32), hay fever or rhinitis (kappa=0.40), or eczema or dermatitis (kappa=0.30) was fair; for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema (kappa=0.56), or heart trouble (kappa=0.54), agreement was moderate; for asthma (kappa=0.78) or pneumonia (kappa=0.62), agreement was good; and for pulmonary tuberculosis (kappa=0.88), agreement was very good. The strength of agreement for information about health service utilisation for respiratory problems ranged from moderate to very good and was good for smoking status.
CONCLUSIONS: Although based on small numbers, our results suggest good or very good agreement between self-reported data and general practice medical records for the absence or presence of some respiratory conditions and some types of respiratory-related health care utilisation. Depending on the research question being examined self-reported information may be appropriate.