A comparison of two methods of collecting economic data in primary care
Please note: this is a legacy publication from CPEC (formely PSSRU at LSE).Family Practice 22 3 323-327
Available online: 11 April 2005
Abstract
Background. There have been few attempts to assess alternative methods of collecting resource use data for economic evaluations. Objective. This study aimed to compare two methods of collecting resource use data in primary care: GPs' case records and a self-complete postal questionnaire. Methods. 303 primary care attenders were sent a postal survey, incorporating a questionnaire designed to collect service utilisation information for the previous six months. Data were also collected from GP case records. The reporting of GP visits between the two methods, and estimates of costs associated with those visits, were compared. Results. There was good agreement between the number of GP visits recorded on GP case records (mean 3.03) and on the CSRI (mean 2.99) (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.756). In contrast, estimates of average costs of visits from CSRI data were higher and had greater variance compared to case record-based costs (£54.63 versus £42.37; P = 0.003). This may be explained by differences in average visit length (11.66 versus 9.36 minutes). Conclusions. This study shows good agreement between GP case records and a self-complete questionnaire for the reporting of GP visits. However, differences in costs associated with those visits arose due to differences in the method used for calculating length of visit.
Background. There have been few attempts to assess alternative methods of collecting resource use data for economic evaluations. Objective. This study aimed to compare two methods of collecting resource use data in primary care: GPs' case records and a self-complete postal questionnaire. Methods. 303 primary care attenders were sent a postal survey, incorporating a questionnaire designed to collect service utilisation information for the previous six months. Data were also collected from GP case records. The reporting of GP visits between the two methods, and estimates of costs associated with those visits, were compared. Results. There was good agreement between the number of GP visits recorded on GP case records (mean 3.03) and on the CSRI (mean 2.99) (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.756). In contrast, estimates of average costs of visits from CSRI data were higher and had greater variance compared to case record-based costs (£54.63 versus £42.37; P = 0.003). This may be explained by differences in average visit length (11.66 versus 9.36 minutes). Conclusions. This study shows good agreement between GP case records and a self-complete questionnaire for the reporting of GP visits. However, differences in costs associated with those visits arose due to differences in the method used for calculating length of visit.