Cartwright A, Windsor J
Community Med. 1989 Aug;11(3):225-9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042471.
A comparison of information obtained from a postal screen of people on the electoral register about attendance at outpatient clinics with data extracted from hospital records found agreement between the two sources for 87 per cent of people. This rose to 90 per cent after an interview follow-up of those whose replies were unclear. Given the complexities of defining outpatient attendances clearly, these levels of agreement seemed good. Fewer consultations were omitted by people when a three rather than a 12-month study period was used, but the particular three-month period used (January-March) may have contributed to this difference.
将从选民登记册上通过邮政方式筛查的人员关于门诊就诊情况的信息与从医院记录中提取的数据进行比较，结果发现，对于87%的人而言，这两个来源的数据是一致的。在对那些回答不清楚的人进行随访面谈后，这一比例升至90%。鉴于明确界定门诊就诊情况存在复杂性，这样的一致程度似乎不错。当使用三个月而非十二个月的研究期时，人们遗漏的诊疗次数较少，但所使用的特定三个月期间（1月至3月）可能导致了这种差异。
