Health Service Utilisation of People Living with Psychosis: Validity of Self-report Compared with Administrative Data in a Randomised Controlled Trial.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-21 DOI:10.1007/s40258-023-00849-x
Vergil Dolar, Mary Lou Chatterton, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Neil Thomas, Lidia Engel
{"title":"Health Service Utilisation of People Living with Psychosis: Validity of Self-report Compared with Administrative Data in a Randomised Controlled Trial.","authors":"Vergil Dolar, Mary Lou Chatterton, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Neil Thomas, Lidia Engel","doi":"10.1007/s40258-023-00849-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-reported service use informs resource utilisation and cost estimates, though its validity for use within economic evaluations is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess agreement in health resource-use measurement between self-reported and administrative data across different resource categories, over time and between different recall periods by subgroups among Australians living with psychosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained for 104 participants with psychotic disorders from a randomised controlled trial. Agreement between self-reported resource-use questionnaires and administrative data on community-based services and medication use was assessed through estimating differences of group mean number of visits and medications used and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) over multiple time periods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ICC showed moderate agreement across most time periods for general practitioners, psychiatrists and mental health medications. No clear trends were discernible over time, between varying lengths of recall periods nor across participant subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite poor agreement, when measuring visits to psychologists and other health professionals, small overall differences in group mean number of visits indicate that self-reported data may still be valid for use in economic evaluations in people living with psychosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00849-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Self-reported service use informs resource utilisation and cost estimates, though its validity for use within economic evaluations is uncertain.

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess agreement in health resource-use measurement between self-reported and administrative data across different resource categories, over time and between different recall periods by subgroups among Australians living with psychosis.

Methods: Data were obtained for 104 participants with psychotic disorders from a randomised controlled trial. Agreement between self-reported resource-use questionnaires and administrative data on community-based services and medication use was assessed through estimating differences of group mean number of visits and medications used and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) over multiple time periods.

Results: ICC showed moderate agreement across most time periods for general practitioners, psychiatrists and mental health medications. No clear trends were discernible over time, between varying lengths of recall periods nor across participant subgroups.

Conclusion: Despite poor agreement, when measuring visits to psychologists and other health professionals, small overall differences in group mean number of visits indicate that self-reported data may still be valid for use in economic evaluations in people living with psychosis.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精神病患者的卫生服务利用:一项随机对照试验中自我报告与行政数据的有效性比较
背景:自我报告的服务使用情况为资源利用和成本估算提供了信息,尽管其在经济评估中使用的有效性尚不确定。目的:本研究的目的是评估澳大利亚精神病患者中不同资源类别的自我报告和行政数据之间的一致性,随着时间的推移以及不同亚组之间的回忆期。方法:从一项随机对照试验中获得104名精神障碍患者的数据。自我报告的资源利用问卷与社区服务和药物使用的行政数据之间的一致性通过估计多个时间段的组平均就诊次数和药物使用以及类内相关系数(ICC)的差异来评估。结果:ICC在大多数时期显示全科医生、精神科医生和精神健康药物的适度一致。随着时间的推移,在不同回忆期的长度之间,以及在参与者亚组之间,都没有明显的趋势。结论:尽管不太一致,当测量心理学家和其他卫生专业人员的访问量时,组平均访问量的小总体差异表明,自我报告的数据可能仍然有效,用于精神病患者的经济评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
期刊最新文献
Social Costs of Smoking in the Czech Republic. Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities. Onasemnogene Abeparvovec Gene Therapy and Risdiplam for the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis. The Impact of the Approach to Accounting for Age and Sex in Economic Models on Predicted Quality-Adjusted Life-Years. Measuring the Impact of Medical Cannabis Law Adoption on Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Costs: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis, 2003–2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1