Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jun 15:13:217.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-217.

Feasibility, reliability and validity of a questionnaire on healthcare consumption and productivity loss in patients with a psychiatric disorder (TiC-P)

Clazien Bouwmans  1 , Kim De Jong, Reinier Timman, Moniek Zijlstra-Vlasveld, Christina Van der Feltz-Cornelis, Siok Tan Swan, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
Affiliations

Feasibility, reliability and validity of a questionnaire on healthcare consumption and productivity loss in patients with a psychiatric disorder (TiC-P)

Clazien Bouwmans et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Patient self-report allows collecting comprehensive data for the purpose of performing economic evaluations. The aim of the current study was to assess the feasibility, reliability and a part of the construct validity of a commonly applied questionnaire on healthcare utilization and productivity losses in patients with a psychiatric disorder (TiC-P).

Methods: Data were derived alongside two clinical trials performed in the Netherlands in patients with mental health problems. The response rate, average time of filling out the questionnaire and proportions of missing values were used as indicators of feasibility of the questionnaire. Test-retest analyses were performed including Cohen's kappa and intra class correlation coefficients to assess reliability of the data. The construct validity was assessed by comparing patient reported data on contacts with psychotherapists and reported data on long-term absence from work with data derived from registries.

Results: The response rate was 72%. The mean time needed for filling out the first TiC-P was 9.4 minutes. The time needed for filling out the questionnaire was 2.3 minutes less for follow up measurements. Proportions of missing values were limited (< 2.4%) except for medication for which in 10% of the cases costs could not be calculated. Cohen's kappa was satisfactory to almost perfect for most items related to healthcare consumption and satisfactory for items on absence from work and presenteeism. Comparable results were shown by the ICCs on variables measuring volumes of medical consumption and productivity losses indicating good reliability of the questionnaire.Absolute agreement between patient-reported data and data derived from medical registrations of the psychotherapists was satisfactory. Accepting a margin of +/- seven days, the agreement on reported and registered data on long-term absence from work was satisfactory. The validity of self-reported data using the TiC-P is promising.

Conclusions: The results indicate that the TiC-P is a feasible and reliable instrument for collecting data on medical consumption and productivity losses in patients with mild to moderate mental health problems. Additionally, the construct validity of questions related to contacts with psychotherapist and long-term absence from work was satisfactory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of an item on medical resource use.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Questions related to absence from work.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Questions related to reduced efficiency during work.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jonsson B. Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10(4):357–359. doi: 10.1007/s10198-009-0173-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Knies S, Severens JL, Ament AJ, Evers SM. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health. 2010;13(5):519–527. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00699.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines–similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4(3):225–250. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.43040.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM, Rutten FF, Hakkaart-van Roijen L. Update of the Dutch Manual for Costing in Economic Evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):152–158. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000062. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrence GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of health Care Programmes: third ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

Publication types