MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038922251 · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00047

Agreement between Self‐reported and Routinely Collected Health‐care Utilization Data among Seniors

2002· article· en· W2038922251 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohen's kappaRespondentIntraclass correlationFamily medicineHealth careOddsLogistic regressionGerontologyStatisticsPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the agreement between self-reported and routinely collected administrative health-care utilization data, and the factors associated with agreement between these two data sources. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: A representative sample of seniors living in an Ontario county within Canada was identified using the Ontario Ministry of Health's Registered Persons Data Base in 1992. Health professional billing information and hospitalization data were obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (OMH) and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was carried out to assess any contact and frequency of contacts with health professionals and hospital admissions. Similar information was obtained from routinely collected administrative data. The level of agreement was assessed using the proportion of absolute agreement, Cohen's kappa statistic (kappa), and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Logistic and linear regressions were used to identify factors that were associated with the magnitude and direction of disagreement respectively. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted on 1,054 seniors, and complete data were available for 1,038 seniors. Each respondent's personal health number was used to electronically link survey data with health professional billing and hospitalization databases. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Substantial to almost perfect agreement was found for the contact utilization measures, while agreement on volume utilization measures varied from poor to almost perfect. In surveys, seniors overreported contact with general practitioners and physiotherapists or chiropractors, and underreported contact with other medical specialists. Seniors also underreported the number of contacts with general practitioners and other medical specialists. The odds of agreement decreased if respondents were male, aged 75 years and older, had incomes of less than $25,000, had poor/fair/good self-assessed health status, or had two or more chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that there are substantial discrepancies between self-reported and administrative data among older adults. Researchers seeking to examine health-care use among older adults need to consider these discrepancies in the interpretation of their results. Failure to recognize these discrepancies between survey and administrative data among older adults may lead to the establishment of inappropriate health-care policies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.280
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it