ArticleBMC geriatrics2015
Discordance between physician-rated health and an objective health measure among institutionalized older people.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment Patterns by Physiologic Age in Older Adults with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Single Institution Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Cross-classification between self-rated health and health status: longitudinal analyses of all-cause mortality and leading causes of death in the UK.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Features and impact of missing values in the association of self-rated health with mortality in care homes: a longitudinal study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough physician-rated health is emerging as a potentially useful variable in research, with implications in practice, it has not been analyzed. Moreover, one of its most important aspects, namely, concordance with patients' objective health state, has not been investigated. This study sought to measure concordance between physician-rated health and an objective health measure, and assess both measures' validity in predicting death.
methodsThe data for the study were drawn from a 1998-1999 survey and subsequent mortality follow-up of residential and nursing homes in Madrid (Spain). Study subjects were 630 residents aged ≥65 years, and their respective facility physicians. Measures included agreement between physicians' rating of residents' overall health (good, intermediate or poor) and an objective measure of residents' health (good, intermediate or poor), based on functional capacity, cognitive status, and number of chronic conditions. Overrating was defined as any case where health, rated as good by a physician, was objectively rated as poor.
resultsWhereas 45% of physicians and 55% of residents rated their health as good, only 4% of such residents had good objective health. Of those who received a physician rating of good/very good health, 39.0% had poor objective health. There was evidence of clear overrating in 18% of the population, and clear to moderate overrating in 73% of the population. In terms of power to predict mortality, the pattern of behavior shown by the objective health measure was good, graded and congruent, and better than that shown by physician-rated health.
conclusionPhysician overrating of the overall health of older persons in residential and nursing homes, would appear to be very high. Although some degree of contextualization by physicians in this setting might be considered reasonable, the degree of overrating in our population seems nevertheless excessive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.