↓ Skip to main content

Concordance between Self-Reports and Medicare Claims among Participants in a National Study of Chronic Disease Self-Management Program

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Concordance between Self-Reports and Medicare Claims among Participants in a National Study of Chronic Disease Self-Management Program
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00222
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luohua Jiang, Ben Zhang, Matthew Lee Smith, Andrea L. Lorden, Tiffany A. Radcliff, Kate Lorig, Benjamin L. Howell, Nancy Whitelaw, Marcia G. Ory

Abstract

To evaluate the concordance between self-reported data and variables obtained from Medicare administrative data in terms of chronic conditions and health care utilization. Retrospective observational study. We analyzed data from a sample of Medicare beneficiaries who were part of the National Study of Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) and were eligible for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pilot evaluation of CDSMP (n = 119). Self-reported and Medicare claims-based chronic conditions and health care utilization were examined. Percent of consistent numbers, kappa statistic (κ), and Pearson's correlation coefficient were used to evaluate concordance. The two data sources had substantial agreement for diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.60, respectively), moderate agreement for cancer and heart disease (κ = 0.50 and κ = 0.47, respectively), and fair agreement for depression (κ = 0.26). With respect to health care utilization, the two data sources had almost perfect or substantial concordance for number of hospitalizations (κ = 0.69-0.79), moderate concordance for ED care utilization (κ = 0.45-0.61), and generally low agreement for number of physician visits (κ ≤ 0.31). Either self-reports or claim-based administrative data for diabetes, COPD, and hospitalizations can be used to analyze Medicare beneficiaries in the US. Yet, caution must be taken when only one data source is available for other types of chronic conditions and health care utilization.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 27%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Social Sciences 8 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 12 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,136,219
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,304
of 10,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,860
of 279,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#38
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.