Comparison of two methods of collecting healthcare usage data in chiropractic clinics: patient-report versus documentation in patient files

Abstract

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research

“…Nowadays, ICC has been widely used in conservative care medicine to evaluate interrater, test-retest, and intrarater reliability (see Table 2 for their definitions). [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] These evaluations are fundamental to clinical assessment because, without them, we have no confidence in our measurements, nor can we draw any rational conclusions from our measurements.…”

A methodological framework for assessing agreement between cost-effectiveness outcomes estimated using alternative sources of data on treatment costs and effects for trial-based economic evaluations

“…For the reasons stated above, analysts working on trial-based economic evaluations have long recognized the need for validated data obtained from disparate sources for application within their evaluations [ 4 ]. In this context, analysts have examined the disparate sources of information for evidence of difference [ 36 ] or agreement [ 4 , 15 , 21 , 23 , 31 ] in individual parameter estimates. These studies have primarily focused on comparisons between multiple sources of information on individual-level healthcare resource use or costs.…”