4.6 Article

Agreement between self-reported and health insurance claims on utilization of health care: A population study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 12, 页码 1316-1322

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.016

关键词

Health interview survey; Utilization of health care; Agreement; Kappa; National health insurance; Taiwan

资金

  1. National Health Interview Survey in Taiwan
  2. National Health Research Institutes [HP-090-PP-01, HP-091-PP-01, BS-090-PP-04, BS-091-PP-04]
  3. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, in Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the agreement between self-reported and insurance claim of the utilization of health care. Study Design and Setting: Data were from the Taiwan National Health Interview Survey, conducted in 2001. There were 22,121 (94.2%) individuals who completed the interview, 18,143 of them aged 12 and above. Among them, 87% signed a consent form to allow us linking their interview with data with the National Health Insurance database. After deleting those with illegible identification code or date of birth, 15,660 subjects were included in the study. Kappa (K) was used to describe the visit concordance, whereas the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to describe frequency consistency. Logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with the agreement. Results: All had reasonable visit and frequency agreements. Logistic regression showed that males and those living in rural areas tended to have a lower likelihood of agreement in reporting outpatient visits compared with others. In reporting emergency room visits, males and those with a higher education level, self-perceived health of not good, chronic disease, or at least one difficulty with activities of daily living (ADL) had higher chances of agreement. Conclusion: Agreement between self-reported utilization and insurance claims were fairly good in general population. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据