Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 85, Issue 7, 1993, Pages 566-570

  Gordon, Nancy P ^a   Hiatt, Robert A ^a   Lampert, Dominique I ^a  

^a DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST EXAMINATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL RECORD; OCCULT BLOOD; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGMOIDOSCOPY;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL AUDIT; MIDDLE AGE; NEOPLASMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0027402048     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/85.7.566     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Eddy D: ACS report on the cancer-related health checkup. CA Cancer J Clin 30:193-240, 1980.
2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Cancer Institute: Working guidelines for early cancer detection: Rationale and supporting evidence to decrease mortality, December 17, 1987. Bethesda, Md: NIH, 1988.
3. US Preventive Services Task Force: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169 Interventions. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins, 1989.
4. National Center for Health Statistics, Thorberry OT, Wilson RW, et al: Health Promotion Data for the 1990 Objectives, Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, United States, 1985. Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics. No. 126. PHS Publ No. (PHS)86-120. Hyattsville, Md: PHS, September 19, 1986.
5. Anda RF, Sienko DG, Remington PL, et al: Screening mammograpy for women 50 years of age and olden Practices and trends, 1987. Am J Prev Med 6:123-129, 1990.
6. California Human Population Laboratory, Hochstim JR: Validation of patients’ responses to two questions in an epidemiologic study of cervical cytology. Berkeley: California State Department of Public Health, 1963.
7. Walter SD, Clarke EA, Hatcher J, et al: A comparison of physician and patient reports of Pap smear histories. J Clin Epidemiol 41:401-410, 1988.
8. Sawyer JA, Earp JA, Fletcher RH, et al: Accuracy of women’s self-report of their last Pap smear. Am J Public Health 79:1036-1037, 1989.
9. McManmon EP, Nadel M Validating selfreported cervical cancer screening practices from a population-based health surve.y Presented at the 118th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, New York, NY, September 30-October 4, 1990.
10. Michielutte R, Dionan MB, Wells HB, et al: Errors in reporting cervical screening among public health clinic patients. J Clin Epidemiol 44:403-408, 1991.
11. Bowman JA, Redman S, Dickinson JA, et al: The accuracy of Pap smear utilization self-report: A methodological consideration in cervical screening research. Health Serv Res 26:97-107, 1991.
12. McKenna MT, Speers M, Mallin K, et al: Agreement between patient self-reports and medical records for Pap smear histories. Am J Prev Med 8:287-291, 1992.
13. King ES, Rimer BK, Trock B, et al: How valid are mammography self-reports? Am J Public Health 80:1386-1388, 1990.
14. Degnan D, Harris R, Ranney J, et al: Measuring the use of mammography: Two methods compared. Am J Public Health 82:1386-1388, 1992.
15. Brown JB, Adams ME: Patients as reliable reporters of medical care process. Recall of ambulatory encounter events. Med Care 30:400-411, 1992.
16. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159-174, 1977.
17. Fleiss JL: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1981, pp 212-235.
18. Sudman S, Bradburn NM: Effects of time and memory factors on response in surveys. J Am Stat Assoc 68:805-815, 1973.