Reliability of distance estimation by doctors and patients: cross sectional study

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Objective: To assess the reliability and accuracy of distance estimated by doctors and patients. Design: Comparison between estimated and measured distances of six familiar sites around Guy's Hospital, London. Subjects: 100 hospital consultants and 100 patients. Main outcome measures: Median (range) of estimated distances, and mean (SD) of the difference between estimated and measured distances. Results: Both doctors and patients gave a wide range of estimates of distance. The estimates differed by up to 14.6-fold from the measured distances, and the difference between minimum and maximum estimates was up to 62.5-fold. Conclusion: Doctors and patients were inaccurate at estimating distances, which implies that estimates of distances walked are not reliable indicators of a person's health. Doctors and patients are inaccurate at estimating distances Estimates of distance can differ by up to 14.6-fold from measured distances, and the difference between the minimum and maximum estimates can be up to 62.5-fold When estimates are expressed as a percentage of the measured distances, estimates for shorter distances are more inaccurate than those of longer distances Decisions regarding health based on estimates of distance are unreliable The economic implication of estimating distance is considerable

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: