Fan Yu|Dominic H. Moon|William R. Carpenter|Bryce B. Reeve|Deborah Usinger|Rebecca L. Green|K. Spearman|Nathan Sheets|Kevin A. Pearlstein|Angela Lucero|Mark R. Waddle|Paul A. Godley|Ronald C. Chen
Comparison of Patient Report and Medical Records of Comorbidities
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
h3importanceh3 comorbid conditions patients cancer affect treatment decisions turn affect survival healthrelated qualityoflife outcomes comparative effectiveness research studies must account conditions via medical record abstraction patient report h3objectiveh3 examine agreement medical records patient reports assessing comorbidities h3design setting participantsh3 patientreported information medical records prospectively collected part north carolina prostate cancer comparative effectiveness amp survivorship study populationbased cohort 881 patients newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer enrolled north carolina central cancer registry january 1 2011 june 30 2013 presence absence 20 medical conditions compared based patient report vs abstraction medical records h3main outcomes measuresh3 agreement patient reports medical records condition assessed using statistic subgroup analyses examined differences statistics based age race marital status educational level income logistic regression models condition examined factors associated higher agreement h3resultsh3 total 881 patients participated study median age 65 years age range 4180 years 633 white 719 16 20 conditions agreement patient reports medical records 90 patients agreement lowest hyperlipidemia 68 036 arthritis 66 014 multivariable analysis older age 70 years old significantly associated lower agreement myocardial infarction odds ratio 031 95 ci 012080 cerebrovascular disease 010 95 ci 001078 coronary artery disease 037 95 ci 020067 arrhythmia 044 95 ci 025079 kidney disease 018 95 ci 006052 race educational level significantly associated 18 19 modeled conditions h3conclusions relevanceh3 overall patient reporting provides information similar medical record abstraction without significant differences patient race educational level use patient reports less costly medical record audits reasonable approach observational comparative effectiveness research