The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparison of two methods of collecting healthcare usage data in chiropractic clinicsfiles: patient reported versus documentation in patient

Comparison of two methods of collecting healthcare usage data in chiropractic clinicsfiles: patient reported versus documentation in patient
Comparison of two methods of collecting healthcare usage data in chiropractic clinicsfiles: patient reported versus documentation in patient
The use of patient-reported questionnaires to collect information on costs associated with routine healthcare services, such as chiropractic, represents a less labour intensive alternative to retrieving these data from patient files. The aim of this paper was to compare patient-report versus patient files for the collection of data describing healthcare usage in chiropractic clinics.As part of a prospective single cohort multi-centre study, data on the number of visits made to chiropractic clinics determined using patient-reported questionnaires or as recorded in patient files were compared three months following the start of treatment. These data were analysed for agreement using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the 95% Limits of Agreement.Eighty-nine patients that had undergone chiropractic care were included in the present study. The two methods yielded an ICC of 0.83 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.88). However, there was a significant difference between the data collection methods, with an average of 0.6 (95% CI = 0.25 to 1.01) additional visits reported in patient files. The 95% Limits of Agreement ranged from 3 fewer visits to 4 additional visits in patient files relative to the number of visits recalled by patients.There was some discrepancy between the number of visits made to the clinic recalled by patients compared to the number recorded in patient files. This should be taken into account in future evaluations of costs of treatments.
2045-709X
Houweling, Taco
c3b6e6ef-88dd-4ddf-8790-0ec5a0fe7400
Bolton, Jenni
de94d322-9a6b-4025-bfdf-9efc17fe7ba8
Newell, David
f1a21938-9604-4f10-aac2-bb19337a638e
Houweling, Taco
c3b6e6ef-88dd-4ddf-8790-0ec5a0fe7400
Bolton, Jenni
de94d322-9a6b-4025-bfdf-9efc17fe7ba8
Newell, David
f1a21938-9604-4f10-aac2-bb19337a638e

Houweling, Taco, Bolton, Jenni and Newell, David (2014) Comparison of two methods of collecting healthcare usage data in chiropractic clinicsfiles: patient reported versus documentation in patient. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 22 (32). (doi:10.1186/s12998-014-0032-9).

Record type: Article

Abstract

The use of patient-reported questionnaires to collect information on costs associated with routine healthcare services, such as chiropractic, represents a less labour intensive alternative to retrieving these data from patient files. The aim of this paper was to compare patient-report versus patient files for the collection of data describing healthcare usage in chiropractic clinics.As part of a prospective single cohort multi-centre study, data on the number of visits made to chiropractic clinics determined using patient-reported questionnaires or as recorded in patient files were compared three months following the start of treatment. These data were analysed for agreement using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the 95% Limits of Agreement.Eighty-nine patients that had undergone chiropractic care were included in the present study. The two methods yielded an ICC of 0.83 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.88). However, there was a significant difference between the data collection methods, with an average of 0.6 (95% CI = 0.25 to 1.01) additional visits reported in patient files. The 95% Limits of Agreement ranged from 3 fewer visits to 4 additional visits in patient files relative to the number of visits recalled by patients.There was some discrepancy between the number of visits made to the clinic recalled by patients compared to the number recorded in patient files. This should be taken into account in future evaluations of costs of treatments.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 2014

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 416492
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/416492
ISSN: 2045-709X
PURE UUID: 336368d0-dedd-40ac-9da0-dd6620b1dae7
ORCID for David Newell: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1462-3586

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 20 Dec 2017 17:30
Last modified: 20 Jul 2019 00:25

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Taco Houweling
Author: Jenni Bolton
Author: David Newell ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×