Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines

• Published in: International journal for quality in health care 1999-06, Vol.11 (3), p.187-192
• Main Authors: Adams, AS, Soumerai, SB, Lomas, J, Ross-Degnan, D
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bias; Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Interviews as Topic; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1353-4505; 1464-3677
• DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/11.3.187

Objective: To assess trends in the use of self-report measures in research on adherence to practice guidelines since 1980, and to determine the impact of response bias on the validity of self-reports as measures of quality of care. Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE search using defined search terms for the period 1980 to 1996. Included studies evaluated the adherence of (e.g. medical records), we compared self-reported and objective adherence rates (measured as per cent adherence). Evidence or response bias was defined as self-reported adherence significantly exceeding the objective measure at the 5% level. Results: We identified 326 studies of guideline adherence. The use of self-report measures of adherence increased from 18% of studies in 1980 to 41% of studies in 1985. Of the 10 studies that used both self-report and objective measurers, eight supported the existence of response bias in all self-reported measures. In 87% of 37 comparisons, self-reported adherence rates exceeded the objective rates, resulting in a median over-estimation of adherence of 27% (absolute difference). Conclusions: Although self-reports may provide information regarding clinicians' knowledge of guideline recommendations, they are subject to bias and should not be used as the sole measure of guideline adherence. Key words: clinical competence, physician practice patterns, practice guidelines, process assessment, quality assurance, quality of care measurement