IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Do measures of self-reported morbidity bias the estimation of the determinants of health care utilisation?

Listed author(s):
  • Sutton, Matthew
  • Carr-Hill, Roy
  • Gravelle, Hugh
  • Rice, Nigel

Most national surveys of health care utilisation capture only self-reported measures of morbidity. If self-reported morbidity is measured with error, then the results of applied work may be misleading. In this paper we propose a model of the relationship between morbidity and health service utilisation which allows for reporting errors and simultaneity. Errors in self-reported morbidity are expressed as a function of person-specific reporting thresholds and recent contact with health services, arising because of better self-evaluation of current health status or a desire to justify consumption of a publicly-provided good. We demonstrate the bias in ignoring the potential problems of reporting errors and simultaneity for a variety of special cases, but in the general case the biases are of ambiguous sign. The empirical nature of these biases is investigated using limiting long-standing illness (LLI) and recent contact with a General Practitioner (GP) in two waves of The UK Health and Lifestyle Survey. Biomedical measures of functioning are used as objective indicators of health status. We find evidence of substantial and significant differences between individuals in reporting thresholds and some evidence that the reporting of LLI may depend on recent visits to a GP. Adjustments for these biases significantly increase the estimated effect of morbidity on utilisation.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

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

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

Volume (Year): 49 (1999)
Issue (Month): 7 (October)
Pages: 867-878

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:7:p:867-878
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Postal:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:7:p:867-878. 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)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.