Publicatie
Publicatie datum
What do health interview surveys tell us about the prevalences of somatic chronic diseases?: a study into concurrent validity.
Velden, J. van der, Abrahamse, H.P.H., Donker, G., Steen, J. van der, Sonsbeek, J.L.A. van, Bos, G.A.M. van den. What do health interview surveys tell us about the prevalences of somatic chronic diseases?: a study into concurrent validity. European Journal of Public Health: 1998, 8(1), 52-58
Lees online
This study examines the concurrent validity of a list of chronic conditions used in health interview surveys. The results regarding the prevalence of chronic diseases from three health interview surveys, carried out in The Netherlands during the 1980s, were compared. In addition, the results for chronic diseases of one of these health interview surveys were checked against the medical records of 11 randomly selected general practices. The comparison indicates the prime importance of the wording of the question. The level of agreement between information about chronic conditions provided by patients and by general practice medical records differed widely for the separate disease categories. This was especially true for the reporting of migraine/serious headache, other diseases of the neurological system, diseases of the stomach and intestines and serious consequences of injury. Age, sex, level of education and how long the interviewee was registered as a patient at the practice played a minor role in these differences. When quantifying health differences it is essential to understand the impact of methodological influences, as minor differences in survey methodology have a substantial effect on the prevalence of chronic disease. Moreover, health interview surveys measure a different health status than general practice morbidity surveys. Neither method is the gold standard for the other. A consensus on instruments and methodological procedures of health interview surveys at {inter)national level should be sought.(aut. ref.)
This study examines the concurrent validity of a list of chronic conditions used in health interview surveys. The results regarding the prevalence of chronic diseases from three health interview surveys, carried out in The Netherlands during the 1980s, were compared. In addition, the results for chronic diseases of one of these health interview surveys were checked against the medical records of 11 randomly selected general practices. The comparison indicates the prime importance of the wording of the question. The level of agreement between information about chronic conditions provided by patients and by general practice medical records differed widely for the separate disease categories. This was especially true for the reporting of migraine/serious headache, other diseases of the neurological system, diseases of the stomach and intestines and serious consequences of injury. Age, sex, level of education and how long the interviewee was registered as a patient at the practice played a minor role in these differences. When quantifying health differences it is essential to understand the impact of methodological influences, as minor differences in survey methodology have a substantial effect on the prevalence of chronic disease. Moreover, health interview surveys measure a different health status than general practice morbidity surveys. Neither method is the gold standard for the other. A consensus on instruments and methodological procedures of health interview surveys at {inter)national level should be sought.(aut. ref.)