IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the iceberg of morbidity: A comparison of different survey methods for assessing the occurrence of everyday illness


  • Kooiker, S. E.


This paper examines problems in measuring the occurrence of acute symptoms of ill health. Health interview surveys and health diaries often lead to different results. Two key hypotheses assume that: 1, interviews using checklists are more sensitive to the respondent's psychological distress than are the open-ended questions of health diaries; and 2, health diaries demand high levels of compliance leading to underreporting of symptoms. An additional 3rd hypothesis assumes that the effect of psychological distress on response patterns is strong for reporting psychological symptoms but insignificant for musculoskeletal symptoms. The hypotheses were tested and explored with data from the Dutch Survey of General Practice, a nationwide study among 161 GPs. A random sample of 100 patients per GP was approached for a health interview and asked to keep a structured health diary during three weeks. Symptoms were recorded during the interview with a checklist and queried in the health diary with open-ended questions. The occurrence of symptoms was modelled with logistic regression. High levels of psychological distress increase the likelihood of recording symptoms for both instruments, but the increase is greater for the interviews. Respondents who have only received limited education, heavy smokers and those who suffer from chronic conditions have a significantly lower likelihood of recording symptoms in the diary as compared to the questionnaire. There was no significant effect of taking an interest in health matters, gender, and work and domestic role obligations. Taking the nature of symptoms into account, it was found that psychological distress had indeed a great effect on the response pattern for psychological symptoms, but not for musculoskeletal symptoms. The criticism that symptom checklists are sensitive to psychological distress rather than to physical illness alone, is confirmed in this study. Open-ended questions prevent biased responses, but result in fewer symptoms being recorded. Health diaries with open-ended questions 'produce' more symptoms but take more effort to complete, requiring sufficiently motivated respondents. It is recommended that a less biased specific list for the assessment of acute symptoms be developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kooiker, S. E., 1995. "Exploring the iceberg of morbidity: A comparison of different survey methods for assessing the occurrence of everyday illness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 317-332, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:3:p:317-332

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Halkos, George, 1993. "Economic incentives for optimal sulphur abatement in Europe," MPRA Paper 33705, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Ger Klaassen & David Pearce, 1995. "Introduction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 85-93, March.
    3. Michael Grossman, 1972. "The Demand for Health: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gros72-1, January.
    4. Tietenberg, T H, 1990. "Economic Instruments for Environmental Regulation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 17-33, Spring.
    5. Halkos, George E., 1993. "Sulphur abatement policy: Implications of cost differentials," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(10), pages 1035-1043, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Duncan Thomas & Elizabeth Frankenberg, 2001. "The Measurement and Interpretation of Health in Social Surveys," Working Papers 01-06, RAND Corporation.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:3:p:317-332. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.