| Title |
Regional differences in the validity of self-reported use of health care in Belgium: selection versus reporting bias
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0198-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Van der Heyden, R. Charafeddine, D. De Bacquer, J. Tafforeau, K. Van Herck |
| Abstract |
The Health Care Module of the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) is aimed to obtain comparable information on the use of inpatient and ambulatory care in all EU member states. In this study we assessed the validity of self-reported information on the use of health care, collected through this instrument, in the Belgian Health Interview Survey (BHIS), and explored the impact of selection and reporting bias on the validity of regional differences in health care use observed in the BHIS. To assess reporting bias, self-reported BHIS 2008 data were linked with register-based data from the Belgian compulsory health insurance (BCHI). The latter were compared with similar estimates from a random sample of the BCHI to investigate the selection bias. Outcome indicators included the prevalence of a contact with a GP, specialist, dentist and a physiotherapist, as well as inpatient and day patient hospitalisation. The validity of the estimates and the regional differences were explored through measures of agreement and logistic regression analyses. Validity of self-reported health care use varies by type of health service and is more affected by reporting than by selection bias. Compared to health insurance estimates, self-reported results underestimate the percentage of people with a specialist contact in the past year (50.5 % versus 65.0 %) and a day patient hospitalisation (7.8 % versus 13.9 %). Inversely, survey results overestimated the percentage of people having visited a dentist in the past year: 58.3 % versus 48.6 %. The best concordance was obtained for an inpatient hospitalisation (kappa 0.75). Survey data overestimate the higher prevalence of a contact with a specialist [OR 1.51 (95 % CI 1.33-1.72) for self-report and 1.08 (95 % CI 1.05-1.15) for register] and underestimate the lower prevalence of a contact with a GP [ORs 0.59 (95 % CI 0.51-0.70) and 0.41 (95 % CI 0.39-0.42) respectively] in Brussels compared to Flanders. Cautiousness is needed to interpret self-reported use of health care, especially for ambulatory care. Regional differences in self-reported health care use may be influenced by regional differences in the validity of the self-reported information. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Psychology | 3 | 12% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,097,556
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#478
of 2,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,686
of 313,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.