4.6 Article

Influence of question structure on the recall of self-reported drug use

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 273-277

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00167-5

Keywords

pharmacoepidemiology; pharmacy records; self-report; question structure; drug use

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epidemiological studies often rely on self-reported information as a source of drug exposure. Several studies have evaluated the accuracy of self-reported information on drug use. The influence of question structure on the accuracy of recall, however, has not been studied extensively in these studies. In this study we examined the recall accuracy of questionnaire information on drug use in a ongoing public health survey with special attention to the influence of question structure on sensitivity of recall. A sample of 372 hypertensive subjects for whom questionnaire information and pharmacy records were available was examined. Self-reported information on drug use was obtained through questions about medications used for a specific condition and one final open-ended question. This information was compared with the pharmacy medication history. About 71% of all drugs that were currently in use according to the pharmacy records were recalled through the self-administered questionnaire, and 94% of all drugs mentioned in the questionnaire could be traced in the pharmacy records. Recall sensitivity was higher for questions about medications used for a specific indication (88%) than for the open-ended question (41%). The type of drug that was used might have caused part of this difference in recall. We conclude that questionnaire structure might be of influence on the accuracy of recall of self-reported drug use, and more attention should be paid to the structure of questions on drug use. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available