Self-reported versus administrative data records: implications for assessing healthcare resource utilization of mental disorders

Author:

Garcia Tarcyane Barata1,Kliemt Roman1,Claus Franziska1,Neumann Anne2,Soltmann Bettina3,Baum Fabian2,Schwarz Julian4,Swart Enno5,Schmitt Jochen2,Pfennig Andrea3,Häckl Dennis6,Weinhold Ines1

Affiliation:

1. WIG2 Institute for Health Economics and Health System Research

2. Center of Evidence-based Health Care, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

3. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Germany

4. University Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School, Rüdersdorf, Germany

5. Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke- University Magdeburg

6. Institute of Public Finance and Public Management, Faculty of Economics and Management Science, Leipzig University

Abstract

Abstract Background: Data on resourceuse are frequently required for health economic evaluation. Studies on health care utilization in individuals with mental disorders have analyzed both self-reports and administrative data, each of which with strengths and limitations. Source of data may affect the quality of cost analysis and compromise the accuracy of results. We sought to ascertain the degree of agreement between self-reports and statutory health insurance (SHI) fund claims data from patients with mental disorders to aid in the selection of data collection methods. Methods:Claims data from six German SHI and self-reported data were obtained along with a cost-effectiveness analysis performed as a part of a controlled prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in 18 psychiatric hospitals in Germany (PsychCare), including patients with pre-defined common and/or severe psychiatric disorders. Self-reported data were collected using the German adaption of the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI-D) questionnaire with a 6-month recall period. Data linkage was performed using a unique pseudonymized identifier. Healthcare utilization (HCU) was calculated for inpatient and outpatient care, day-care services, home treatment, and pharmaceuticals. Concordance was measured using Cohen’s Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient. Regression approaches were used to investigate the effect of independent variables on the dichotomous and quantitative agreements. Results: In total 274 participants (mean age 47.8 [SD = 14.2] years; 47.08% women) were included in the analysis. Kappa values were 0.03 for outpatient contacts, 0.25 for medication use, 0.56 for inpatient days and 0.67 for day-care services. There was varied quantitative agreement between data sources, with the poorest agreement for outpatient care (ICC [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.10-0.33]) and the best for psychiatric day-care services (ICC [95% CI] = 0.72 [0.66-0.78]). Marital status and time since first treatment positively affected the chance of agreement on any use of outpatient services. Conclusions: Concordance between administrative records and patient self-reports was fair to moderate for most of the healthcare services analyzed. Health economic studies should consider using linked or at least different data sources to estimate HCU or focus the primary data-based surveys in specific utilization areas, where unbiased information can be expected.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference65 articles.

1. Global regional. and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Psychiatry 2022;9(2):137–50.

2. Capitation of public mental health services in Colorado: a five-year follow-up of system-level effects;Bloom JR;Psychiatric Serv (Washington D C),2011

3. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA). Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten durch Arbeitsunfähigkeit 2020; Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2020. 2020.

4. Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review;Gansen FM;BMC Health Serv Res,2018

5. The excess costs of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis;König H;Epidemiol psychiatric Sci,2019

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3