Gastrointestinal recall questionnaires compare poorly with prospective patient diaries for gastrointestinal symptoms: data from population and primary health centre samples

Michael P. Jones, Susanna Walter, Åshild Faresjö, Ewa Grodzinsky, Lars Kjellström, Lisa Viktorsson, Nicholas J. Talley, Lars Agreus, Anna Andreasson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical understanding of gastrointestinal symptoms is commonly based on patient reports of symptom experience. For diagnosis and treatment choices to be appropriate, symptom reports need to be accurate. We examined the agreement between questionnaire recall and prospective diary enumeration of symptoms relevant to the irritable bowel syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data are reported from a randomly selected general population sample (n=238) and also a primary healthcare centre (PHC) sample (n=503, 10 PHCs). All the patients completed the questionnaires, which included Rome III-qualifying irritable bowel syndrome items and a stool and symptom diary over either 7 or 14 days. Agreement between retrospective questionnaire reports and prospective diaries was evaluated. RESULTS: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was highest for the simple construct of the occurrence of abdominal pain, although after adjusting for possible chance, agreement was only moderate in the general population sample. More complex constructs, such as pain relieved by defecation, yielded poorer concordance. In general, concordance was stronger among PHC respondents than in the general population sample. CONCLUSION: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was generally poor and related to the complexity of the symptom construct and the type of respondent. The information used to classify individuals based on patient self-report may be unreliable, and therefore, more effort is needed to develop data collection instruments.

LanguageEnglish
Pages163-169
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean journal of gastroenterology & hepatology
Volume31
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2019

Fingerprint

Health
Population
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Primary Health Care
Defecation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Self Report
Abdominal Pain
Pain
Therapeutics

Cite this

Jones, Michael P. ; Walter, Susanna ; Faresjö, Åshild ; Grodzinsky, Ewa ; Kjellström, Lars ; Viktorsson, Lisa ; Talley, Nicholas J. ; Agreus, Lars ; Andreasson, Anna. / Gastrointestinal recall questionnaires compare poorly with prospective patient diaries for gastrointestinal symptoms : data from population and primary health centre samples. In: European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology. 2019 ; Vol. 31, No. 2. pp. 163-169.
@article{ff4d1d491b224f2db474e17d53681395,
title = "Gastrointestinal recall questionnaires compare poorly with prospective patient diaries for gastrointestinal symptoms: data from population and primary health centre samples",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Clinical understanding of gastrointestinal symptoms is commonly based on patient reports of symptom experience. For diagnosis and treatment choices to be appropriate, symptom reports need to be accurate. We examined the agreement between questionnaire recall and prospective diary enumeration of symptoms relevant to the irritable bowel syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data are reported from a randomly selected general population sample (n=238) and also a primary healthcare centre (PHC) sample (n=503, 10 PHCs). All the patients completed the questionnaires, which included Rome III-qualifying irritable bowel syndrome items and a stool and symptom diary over either 7 or 14 days. Agreement between retrospective questionnaire reports and prospective diaries was evaluated. RESULTS: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was highest for the simple construct of the occurrence of abdominal pain, although after adjusting for possible chance, agreement was only moderate in the general population sample. More complex constructs, such as pain relieved by defecation, yielded poorer concordance. In general, concordance was stronger among PHC respondents than in the general population sample. CONCLUSION: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was generally poor and related to the complexity of the symptom construct and the type of respondent. The information used to classify individuals based on patient self-report may be unreliable, and therefore, more effort is needed to develop data collection instruments.",
author = "Jones, {Michael P.} and Susanna Walter and {\AA}shild Faresj{\"o} and Ewa Grodzinsky and Lars Kjellstr{\"o}m and Lisa Viktorsson and Talley, {Nicholas J.} and Lars Agreus and Anna Andreasson",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1097/MEG.0000000000001296",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "163--169",
journal = "European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology",
issn = "0954-691X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

Gastrointestinal recall questionnaires compare poorly with prospective patient diaries for gastrointestinal symptoms : data from population and primary health centre samples. / Jones, Michael P.; Walter, Susanna; Faresjö, Åshild; Grodzinsky, Ewa; Kjellström, Lars; Viktorsson, Lisa; Talley, Nicholas J.; Agreus, Lars; Andreasson, Anna.

In: European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, Vol. 31, No. 2, 02.2019, p. 163-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gastrointestinal recall questionnaires compare poorly with prospective patient diaries for gastrointestinal symptoms

T2 - European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

AU - Jones,Michael P.

AU - Walter,Susanna

AU - Faresjö,Åshild

AU - Grodzinsky,Ewa

AU - Kjellström,Lars

AU - Viktorsson,Lisa

AU - Talley,Nicholas J.

AU - Agreus,Lars

AU - Andreasson,Anna

PY - 2019/2

Y1 - 2019/2

N2 - BACKGROUND: Clinical understanding of gastrointestinal symptoms is commonly based on patient reports of symptom experience. For diagnosis and treatment choices to be appropriate, symptom reports need to be accurate. We examined the agreement between questionnaire recall and prospective diary enumeration of symptoms relevant to the irritable bowel syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data are reported from a randomly selected general population sample (n=238) and also a primary healthcare centre (PHC) sample (n=503, 10 PHCs). All the patients completed the questionnaires, which included Rome III-qualifying irritable bowel syndrome items and a stool and symptom diary over either 7 or 14 days. Agreement between retrospective questionnaire reports and prospective diaries was evaluated. RESULTS: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was highest for the simple construct of the occurrence of abdominal pain, although after adjusting for possible chance, agreement was only moderate in the general population sample. More complex constructs, such as pain relieved by defecation, yielded poorer concordance. In general, concordance was stronger among PHC respondents than in the general population sample. CONCLUSION: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was generally poor and related to the complexity of the symptom construct and the type of respondent. The information used to classify individuals based on patient self-report may be unreliable, and therefore, more effort is needed to develop data collection instruments.

AB - BACKGROUND: Clinical understanding of gastrointestinal symptoms is commonly based on patient reports of symptom experience. For diagnosis and treatment choices to be appropriate, symptom reports need to be accurate. We examined the agreement between questionnaire recall and prospective diary enumeration of symptoms relevant to the irritable bowel syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data are reported from a randomly selected general population sample (n=238) and also a primary healthcare centre (PHC) sample (n=503, 10 PHCs). All the patients completed the questionnaires, which included Rome III-qualifying irritable bowel syndrome items and a stool and symptom diary over either 7 or 14 days. Agreement between retrospective questionnaire reports and prospective diaries was evaluated. RESULTS: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was highest for the simple construct of the occurrence of abdominal pain, although after adjusting for possible chance, agreement was only moderate in the general population sample. More complex constructs, such as pain relieved by defecation, yielded poorer concordance. In general, concordance was stronger among PHC respondents than in the general population sample. CONCLUSION: Concordance between questionnaires and diaries was generally poor and related to the complexity of the symptom construct and the type of respondent. The information used to classify individuals based on patient self-report may be unreliable, and therefore, more effort is needed to develop data collection instruments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058891452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001296

DO - 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001296

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 163

EP - 169

JO - European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

JF - European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

SN - 0954-691X

IS - 2

ER -