IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v16y2007i5p531-536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health care interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Byford
  • Morven Leese
  • Martin Knapp
  • Helen Seivewright
  • Susan Cameron
  • Vanessa Jones
  • Kate Davidson
  • Peter Tyrer

Abstract

Economic evaluation of health care interventions usually requires the collection of service use data to estimate the total cost of participants in an evaluation. There are a number of methods available to measure the quantity of services used but little is known about the relative accuracy of alternative methods. In a multicentre randomised controlled trial of interventions for the treatment of adults with recurrent episodes of deliberate self‐harm (the POPMACT trial), health service data were collected by patient self‐report after six and twelve months and also from GP records by independent investigators. Agreement for overall costs was relatively high. However, this hides substantial variation in agreement between the two sources of information for different services. The results suggest that GP records provide more accurate data on the use of general practice‐based contacts than patient report, but less reliable information on contacts with other health services. Thus reliance on GP records for data on hospital services and other community health services based outside of general practice surgeries is not recommended. Future research should explore the level of agreement between patient report and other providing sector records, such as hospital records. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Byford & Morven Leese & Martin Knapp & Helen Seivewright & Susan Cameron & Vanessa Jones & Kate Davidson & Peter Tyrer, 2007. "Comparison of alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 531-536, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:5:p:531-536
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1175
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1175?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    2. James F. Burgess & Matthew L. Maciejewski & Chris L. Bryson & Michael Chapko & John C. Fortney & Mark Perkins & Nancy D. Sharp & Chuan‐Fen Liu, 2011. "Importance of health system context for evaluating utilization patterns across systems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 239-251, February.
    3. Edward C. F. Wilson & Miranda Mugford & Garry Barton & Lee Shepstone, 2016. "Efficient Research Design," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 335-348, April.
    4. Adam Martin & Alex Jones & Miranda Mugford & Ian Shemilt & Ruth Hancock & Raphael Wittenberg, 2012. "Methods Used To Identify And Measure Resource Use In Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Of Questionnaires For Older People," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 1017-1022, August.
    5. Felix Achana & Stavros Petrou & Kamran Khan & Amadou Gaye & Neena Modi, 2018. "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," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 75-86, January.
    6. Colin Green & David A Richards & Jacqueline J Hill & Linda Gask & Karina Lovell & Carolyn Chew-Graham & Peter Bower & John Cape & Stephen Pilling & Ricardo Araya & David Kessler & J Martin Bland & Sim, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-12, August.
    7. Susanne Mayer & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & Dirk Ruwaard & Silvia M. A. A. Evers, 2017. "Health-Related Resource-Use Measurement Instruments for Intersectoral Costs and Benefits in the Education and Criminal Justice Sectors," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(9), pages 895-908, September.
    8. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    9. Pokhilenko, Irina & Janssen, Luca M.M. & Paulus, Aggie T.G. & Drost, Ruben M.W.A. & Hollingworth, William & Thorn, Joanna & Noble, Sian & Simon, Judit & Fischer, Claudia & Mayer, Susanne & Salvador-Ca, 2023. "Development of an instrument for the assessment of health-related multi-sectoral resource use in Europe: the PECUNIA RUM," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117961, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:5:p:531-536. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.