Improving Estimates of Alcohol-Attributable Deaths in the United States: Impact of Adjusting for the Underreporting of Alcohol Consumption.

OBJECTIVE: Self-reported alcohol consumption in U.S. public health surveys covers only 30%-60% of per capita alcohol sales, based on tax and shipment data. To estimate alcohol-attributable harms using alcohol-attributable fractions, accurate measures of total population consumption and the distribution of this drinking are needed. This study compared methodological approaches of adjusting self-reported survey data on alcohol consumption to better reflect sales and assessed the impact of these adjustments on the distribution of average daily consumption (ADC) levels and the number of alcohol-attributable deaths. METHOD: Prevalence estimates of ADC levels (i.e., low, medium, and high) among U.S. adults who responded to the 2011-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; N = 2,198,089) were estimated using six methods. BRFSS ADC estimates were adjusted using the National Alcohol Survey, per capita alcohol sales data (from the Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System), or both. Prevalence estimates for the six methods were used to estimate average annual alcohol-attributable deaths, using a population-attributable fraction approach. RESULTS: Self-reported ADC in the BRFSS accounted for 31.3% coverage of per capita alcohol sales without adjustments, 36.1% using indexed-BRFSS data, and 44.3% with National Alcohol Survey adjustments. Per capita sales adjustments decreased low ADC prevalence estimates and increased medium and high ADC prevalence estimates. Estimated alcohol-attributable deaths ranged from approximately 91,200 per year (BRFSS unadjusted; Method 1) to 125,200 per year (100% of per capita sales adjustment; Method 6). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting ADC to reflect total U.S. alcohol consumption (e.g., adjusting to 73% of per capita sales) has implications for assessing the impact of excessive drinking on health outcomes, including alcohol-attributable death estimates.

Supporting self-management education for arthritis: Evidence from the Arthritis Conditions and Health Effects Survey on the influential role of health care providers.

OBJECTIVE: Self-management education programs are recommended for many chronic conditions. We studied which adults with arthritis received a health care provider's recommendation to take a self-management education class and who attended. METHODS: We analyzed data from a 2005--2006 national telephone survey of US adults with arthritis ≥45 years (n = 1793). We used multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) from logistic regression models to estimate associations with: (1) receiving a health care provider recommendation to take a self-management education class; and (2) attending a self-management education class. RESULTS: Among all adults with arthritis: 9.9% received a health care provider recommendation to take an self-management education class; 9.7% attended a self-management education class. Of those receiving a recommendation, 52.0% attended a self-management education class. The strongest association with self-management education class attendance was an health care provider recommendation to take one (PR = 8.9; 95% CI = 6.6-12.1). CONCLUSIONS: For adults with arthritis, a health care provider recommendation to take a self-management education class was strongly associated with self-management education class attendance. Approximately 50% of adults with arthritis have ≥1 other chronic conditions; by recommending self-management education program attendance, health care providers may activate patients' self-management behaviors. If generalizable to other chronic conditions, this health care provider recommendation could be a key influencer in improving outcomes for a range of chronic conditions and patients' quality of life.

Measuring Alcohol Outlet Density: An Overview of Strategies for Public Health Practitioners.

CONTEXT: Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 88 000 deaths in the United States annually and cost the United States $249 billion in 2010. There is strong scientific evidence that regulating alcohol outlet density is an effective intervention for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms, but there is no standard method for measuring this exposure. PROGRAM: We overview the strategies available for measuring outlet density, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and provide examples of how they can be applied in practice. IMPLEMENTATION: The 3 main approaches for measuring density are container-based (eg, number of outlets in a county), distance-based (eg, average distance between a college and outlets), and spatial access-based (eg, weighted distance between town center and outlets). EVALUATION: While container-based measures are the simplest to calculate and most intuitive, distance-based or spatial access-based measures are unconstrained by geopolitical boundaries and allow for assessment of clustering (an amplifier of certain alcohol-related harms). Spatial access-based measures can also be adjusted for population size/demographics but are the most resource-intensive to produce. DISCUSSION: Alcohol outlet density varies widely across and between locations and over time, which is why it is important to measure it. Routine public health surveillance of alcohol outlet density is important to identify problem areas and detect emerging ones. Distance- or spatial access-based measures of alcohol outlet density are more resource-intensive than container-based measures but provide a much more accurate assessment of exposure to alcohol outlets and can be used to assess clustering, which is particularly important when assessing the relationship between density and alcohol-related harms, such as violent crime.

Distribution of Drinks Consumed by U.S. Adults by Average Daily Alcohol Consumption: A Comparison of 2 Nationwide Surveys.

INTRODUCTION: Estimates of alcohol consumption in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are generally lower than those in other surveys of U.S. adults. This study compares the estimates of adults' drinking patterns and the distribution of drinks consumed by average daily alcohol consumption from 2 nationwide telephone surveys. METHODS: The 2014-2015 National Alcohol Survey (n=7,067) and the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n=408,069) were used to assess alcohol consumption among adults (≥18 years), analyzed in 2019. The weighted prevalence of binge-level drinking and the distribution of drinks consumed by average daily alcohol consumption (low, medium, high) were assessed for the previous 12 months using the National Alcohol Survey and the previous 30 days using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, stratified by respondents' characteristics. RESULTS: The prevalence of binge-level drinking in a day was 26.1% for the National Alcohol Survey; the binge drinking prevalence was 17.4% for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The prevalence of high average daily alcohol consumption among current drinkers was 8.2% for the National Alcohol Survey, accounting for 51.0% of total drinks consumed, and 3.3% for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, accounting for 27.7% of total drinks consumed. CONCLUSIONS: National Alcohol Survey yearly prevalence estimates of binge-level drinking in a day and high average daily consumption were consistently greater than Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System monthly binge drinking and high average daily consumption prevalence estimates. When planning and evaluating prevention strategies, the impact of different survey designs and methods on estimates of excessive drinking and related harms is important to consider.

Where Have All the Patients Gone? Profile of US Adults Who Report Doctor-Diagnosed Arthritis But Are Not Being Treated.

BACKGROUND: Patients only benefit from clinical management of arthritis if they are under the care of a physician or other health professional. OBJECTIVES: We profiled adults who reported doctor-diagnosed arthritis who are not currently being treated for it to understand better who they are. METHODS: Individuals with no current treatment (NCT) were identified by "no" to "Are you currently being treated by a doctor or other health professional for arthritis or joint symptoms?" Demographics, current symptoms, physical functioning, arthritis limitations and interference in life activities, and level of agreement with treatment and attitude statements were assessed in this cross-sectional, descriptive study of noninstitutionalized US adults aged 45 years or older with self-reported, doctor-diagnosed arthritis (n = 1793). RESULTS: More than half of the study population, 52%, reported NCT (n = 920). Of those with NCT, 27% reported fair/poor health, 40% reported being limited by their arthritis, 51% had daily arthritis pain, 59% reported 2 or more symptomatic joints, and 19% reported the lowest third of physical functioning. Despite NCT, 83% with NCT agreed or strongly agreed with the importance of seeing a doctor for diagnosis and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Greater than half of those aged 45 years or older with arthritis were not currently being treated for it, substantial proportions of whom experienced severe symptoms and poor physical function and may benefit from clinical management and guidance, complemented by community-delivered public health interventions (self-management education, physical activity). Further research to understand the reasons for NCT may identify promising intervention points to address missed treatment opportunities and improve quality of life and functioning.

Operationalizing Surveillance of Chronic Disease Self-Management and Self-Management Support.

Sixty percent of US adults have at least one chronic condition, and more than 40% have multiple conditions. Self-management (SM) by the individual, along with self-management support (SMS) by others, are nonpharmacological interventions with few side effects that are critical to optimal chronic disease control. Ruiz and colleagues laid the conceptual groundwork for surveillance of SM/SMS at 5 socio-ecological levels (individual, health system, community, policy, and media). We extend that work by proposing operationalized indicators at each socio-ecologic level and suggest that the indicators be embedded in existing surveillance systems at national, state, and local levels. Without a robust measurement system at the population level, we will not know how far we have to go or how far we have come in making SM and SMS a reality. The data can also be used to facilitate planning and service delivery strategies, monitor temporal changes, and stimulate SM/SMS-related research.

Alternative Methods for Defining Osteoarthritis and the Impact on Estimating Prevalence in a US Population-Based Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Provide a contemporary estimate of osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing the accuracy and prevalence of alternative definitions of OA. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) household component (HC) records respondent-reported medical conditions as open-ended responses; professional coders translate these responses into International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for the medical conditions files. Using these codes and other data from the MEPS-HC medical conditions files, we constructed 3 case definitions of OA and assessed them against medical provider diagnoses of ICD-9-CM 715 (osteoarthrosis and allied disorders) in a MEPS subsample. The 3 definitions were 1) strict = ICD-9-CM 715; 2) expanded = ICD-9-CM 715, 716 (other and unspecified arthropathies) OR 719 (other and unspecified disorders of joint); and 3) probable = strict OR expanded + respondent-reported prior diagnosis of OA or other arthritis excluding rheumatoid arthritis. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of the 3 definitions, respectively, were 34.6% and 97.5% for strict, 73.8% and 90.5% for expanded, and 62.9% and 93.5% for probable. CONCLUSION: The strict definition for OA (ICD-9-CM 715) excludes many individuals with OA. The probable definition of OA has the optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity relative to the 2 other MEPS-based definitions and yields a national annual estimate of 30.8 million adults with OA (13.4% of US adult population) for 2008-2011.

2010 National and State Costs of Excessive Alcohol Consumption.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol use cost the U.S. $223.5 billion in 2006. Given economic shifts in the U.S. since 2006, more-current estimates are needed to help inform the planning of prevention strategies. METHODS: From March 2012 to March 2014, the 26 cost components used to assess the cost of excessive drinking in 2006 were projected to 2010 based on incidence (e.g., change in number of alcohol-attributable deaths) and price (e.g., inflation rate in cost of medical care). The total cost, cost to government, and costs for binge drinking, underage drinking, and drinking while pregnant were estimated for the U.S. for 2010 and allocated to states. RESULTS: Excessive drinking cost the U.S. $249.0 billion in 2010, or about $2.05 per drink. Government paid for $100.7 billion (40.4%) of these costs. Binge drinking accounted for $191.1 billion (76.7%) of costs; underage drinking $24.3 billion (9.7%) of costs; and drinking while pregnant $5.5 billion (2.2%) of costs. The median cost per state was $3.5 billion. Binge drinking was responsible for >70% of these costs in all states, and >40% of the binge drinking-related costs were paid by government. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive drinking cost the nation almost $250 billion in 2010. Two of every $5 of the total cost was paid by government, and three quarters of the costs were due to binge drinking. Several evidence-based strategies can help reduce excessive drinking and related costs, including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, and commercial host liability.

Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009).

OBJECTIVE: To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SAMPLE: 56 DBRFs occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009. PROCEDURES: DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]), owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%]), compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%]), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%]), owners' prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%]), and owners' history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%]). Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.

State costs of excessive alcohol consumption, 2006.

BACKGROUND: Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for an average of 80,000 deaths in the U.S. each year and cost $223.5 billion ($1.90/drink) in 2006. Comparable state estimates of this cost are needed to help inform prevention strategies. PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to estimate the economic cost of excessive drinking by state for 2006. METHODS: From December 2011 to November 2012, an expert panel developed methods to allocate component costs from the 2006 national estimate to states for (1) total; (2) government; (3) binge drinking; and (4) underage drinking costs. Differences in average state wages were used to adjust productivity losses. RESULTS: In 2006, the median state cost of excessive drinking was $2.9 billion (range: $31.9 billion [California] to $419.6 million [North Dakota]); the median cost per drink, $1.91 (range: $2.74 [Utah] to $0.88 [New Hampshire]); and the median per capita cost, $703 (range: $1662 [District of Columbia] to $578 [Utah]). A median of 42% of state costs were paid by government (range: 45.0% [Utah] to 37.0% [Mississippi]). Binge drinking was responsible for a median of 76.6% of state costs (range: 83.1% [Louisiana] to 71.6% [Massachusetts]); underage drinking, a median of 11.2% of state costs (range: 20.0% [Wyoming] to 5.5% [District of Columbia]). CONCLUSIONS: Excessive drinking cost states a median of $2.9 billion in 2006. Most of the costs were due to binge drinking and about $2 of every $5 were paid by government. The Guide to Community Preventive Services has recommended several evidence-based strategies-including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, and commercial host liability-that can help reduce excessive alcohol use and the associated economic costs.

Anxiety and depression among US adults with arthritis: prevalence and correlates.

OBJECTIVE: There has been limited characterization of the burden of anxiety and depression, especially the former, among US adults with arthritis in the general population. The study objective was to estimate the prevalence and correlates of anxiety and depression among US adults with doctor-diagnosed arthritis. METHODS: The study sample comprised US adults ages ≥ 45 years with doctor-diagnosed arthritis (n = 1,793) from the Arthritis Conditions Health Effects Survey (a cross-sectional, population-based, random-digit-dialed telephone interview survey). Anxiety and depression were measured using separate and validated subscales of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Prevalence was estimated for the sample overall and stratified by subgroups. Associations between correlates and each condition were estimated with prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Anxiety was more common than depression (31% and 18%, respectively); overall, one-third of respondents reported at least 1 of the 2 conditions. Most (84%) of those with depression also had anxiety. Multivariable logistic regression modeling failed to identify a distinct profile of characteristics of those with anxiety and/or depression. Only half of the respondents with anxiety and/or depression had sought help for their mental health condition in the past year. CONCLUSION: Despite the clinical focus on depression among people with arthritis, anxiety was almost twice as common as depression. Given their high prevalence, their profound impact on quality of life, and the range of effective treatments available, we encourage health care providers to screen all people with arthritis for both anxiety and depression.

Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S., 2006.

BACKGROUND: Excessive alcohol consumption causes premature death (average of 79,000 deaths annually); increased disease and injury; property damage from fire and motor vehicle crashes; alcohol-related crime; and lost productivity. However, its economic cost has not been assessed for the U.S. since 1998. PURPOSE: To update prior national estimates of the economic costs of excessive drinking. METHODS: This study (conducted 2009-2010) followed U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines to assess the economic cost of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006. Costs for health care, productivity losses, and other effects (e.g., property damage) in 2006 were obtained from national databases. Alcohol-attributable fractions were obtained from multiple sources and used to assess the proportion of costs that could be attributed to excessive alcohol consumption. RESULTS: The estimated economic cost of excessive drinking was $223.5 billion in 2006 (72.2% from lost productivity, 11.0% from healthcare costs, 9.4% from criminal justice costs, and 7.5% from other effects) or approximately $1.90 per alcoholic drink. Binge drinking resulted in costs of $170.7 billion (76.4% of the total); underage drinking $24.6 [corrected] billion; and drinking during pregnancy $5.2 billion. The cost of alcohol-attributable crime was $73.3 billion. The cost to government was $94.2 billion (42.1% of the total cost), which corresponds to about $0.80 per alcoholic drink consumed in 2006 (categories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap). CONCLUSIONS: On a per capita basis, the economic impact of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S. is approximately $746 per person, most of which is attributable to binge drinking. Evidence-based strategies for reducing excessive drinking should be widely implemented.

Should people who have joint symptoms, but no diagnosis of arthritis from a doctor, be included in surveillance efforts?

OBJECTIVE: In 2005, 27% of adults reported doctor-diagnosed arthritis, and 14% reported chronic joint symptoms but no doctor-diagnosed arthritis (i.e., possible arthritis). We evaluate the value of including persons classified as having possible arthritis in surveillance of arthritis. METHODS: In 2005, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Utah added extra questions to their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) telephone survey targeted to a subsample of those classified as having possible arthritis. RESULTS: Persons classified as having possible arthritis (n = 2,884) were younger, more often male, and had less activity limitation than persons with doctor-diagnosed arthritis. Of those classified as having possible arthritis, half had seen a doctor for their symptoms, 12.5% reported arthritis, and 61.9% gave other causes. Of the half who had not seen a doctor, most reported mild symptoms (64.8%). CONCLUSION: Only 6.3% of those classified as having possible arthritis had what we considered to be arthritis. Most who did not see a doctor reported mild symptoms and, therefore, would be unlikely to be amenable to medical and public health interventions for arthritis. Although including possible arthritis would slightly improve the sensitivity of detecting arthritis in the population, it would increase false-positives that would interfere with targeting state intervention efforts and burden estimates. The ability to add back questions to the BRFSS survey allows for the reintroduction of possible arthritis in case national surveillance indicates it necessary or if studies document an increased rate at which possible arthritis turns into arthritis. Currently, possible arthritis does not need to be included in state arthritis surveillance efforts, and limited question space on surveys is better spent on other arthritis issues.

Arthritis restricts volunteer participation: prevalence and correlates of volunteer status among adults with arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate, among adults ages > or = 45 years with arthritis, the prevalence and correlates of 1) volunteering, 2) arthritis-attributable restrictions among volunteers, and 3) arthritis as the main barrier to volunteering (AMBV) among non-volunteers. METHODS: Data were from the 2005-2006 Arthritis Conditions Health Effects Survey, a cross-sectional random-digit-dialed national telephone survey of noninstitutionalized US adults ages > or = 45 years with self-reported, doctor-diagnosed arthritis. Respondents (n = 1,793; weighted population 37.7 million) were asked if they currently volunteer (work outside the home without pay). Volunteers were asked if arthritis affects their amount or type of volunteering (arthritis-attributable volunteer limitation [AAVL]). Non-volunteers were asked if arthritis is the main reason they do not volunteer (AMBV). Univariable and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate associations between potential correlates and each outcome. RESULTS: One-third of the respondents reported volunteering. Among volunteers, 41% (4.9 million) reported AAVL. Among non-volunteers, 27% (6.8 million) reported AMBV. Fair/poor self-rated health was significantly associated with less volunteering (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.4-0.8) and greater AAVL (multivariable-adjusted OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.0) and AMBV (multivariable-adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.7). Poor physical function was the most strongly associated correlate of both AAVL and AMBV (multivariable-adjusted ORs 8.0 and 4.3, respectively). CONCLUSION: Volunteering is an important role with individual and societal benefits, but almost 12 million adults with arthritis are limited or do not participate in volunteering due to arthritis. Individuals with restrictions in volunteering reported a substantial burden of poor physical function and may benefit from effective, underused interventions designed to improve physical function, delay disability, and enhance arthritis self-management.

Prevalence of specific types of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the ambulatory health care system in the United States, 2001-2005.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the overall prevalence of medically-treated arthritis and other rheumatic conditions (AORC) for adults, the prevalence of specific medically-treated conditions, and the overall annual number of visits for these conditions in the ambulatory health care system. METHODS: We used data from the 2001-2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and 2001-2005 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to estimate annual ambulatory health care visits for the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes thought to represent AORC. Using data on the number of prior annual visits per patient per condition, we converted the visit estimates into prevalence estimates of adults age > or =18 years with medically-treated AORC overall and for specific conditions. RESULTS: The overall prevalence estimate of adults with medically-treated AORC was 29,150,000 adults (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 26,473,000-31,826,000) and accounted for 77,887,300 ambulatory care visits (95% CI 71,266,000-84,508,000). The top 5 most prevalent conditions were osteoarthritis and allied disorders, unspecified joint disorders, peripheral enthesopathies, unspecified arthropathies, and other disorders of synovium, tendon, or bursa. CONCLUSION: The advantage of our approach is that it uses existing rather than expensive new surveys for tracking the prevalence of medically-treated AORC overall and tracking the prevalence of difficult to measure specific conditions. The estimates are data based and national in scope. More relevantly, they better estimate the numbers of persons whose AORC impacts on the ambulatory health care system.

Prevalence of and annual ambulatory health care visits for pediatric arthritis and other rheumatologic conditions in the United States in 2001-2004.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of and the annual number of ambulatory health care visits for pediatric arthritis and other rheumatologic conditions. METHODS: We used physician office visit, outpatient department visit, and emergency department visit data from the 2001-2004 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and 2001-2004 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to estimate annual visits for the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes thought to represent significant pediatric arthritis and other rheumatologic conditions (SPARC). We converted visit estimates into prevalence estimates using data on the number of prior annual visits per patient. Synthetic estimates for states were produced using national rates. RESULTS: The average annualized estimate of the number of children with SPARC was 294,000 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 188,000-400,000). The annualized number of ambulatory health care visits for SPARC was 827,000 (95% CI 609,000-1,044,000). CONCLUSION: Pediatric arthritis estimates have varied widely because it is an umbrella term for which there are many definitions and because it is a relatively uncommon condition from a population surveillance perspective. Our estimates suggest that arthritis-related health care visits impose a substantial burden on the pediatric health care system. One advantage of this surveillance paradigm is that it has established a starting point for tracking the national prevalence of arthritis and rheumatologic conditions in children on an ongoing basis using existing infrastructure rather than expensive new surveys. This surveillance system will help us monitor and predict the health care needs of patients with these conditions.

Validation of a surveillance case definition for arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether self-reports of chronic joint symptoms or doctor-diagnosed arthritis can validly identify persons with clinically verifiable arthritis. METHODS: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone health survey, defines a case of arthritis as a self-report of chronic joint symptoms (CJS) and/or doctor-diagnosed arthritis (DDx). A sample of health plan enrollees aged 45-64 years and >/= 65 years with upcoming annual physical examinations were surveyed by telephone using the 2002 BRFSS CJS and DDx questions. Based on responses (CJS+, DDx-; CJS-, DDx+; CJS+, DDx+; CJS-, DDx-), respondents were recruited to undergo a standardized clinical history and physical examination for arthritis (the gold standard for clinical validation). Weighted sensitivities and specificities of the case definition were calculated to adjust for sampling. RESULTS: Of 2180 persons completing the telephone questionnaire, 389 were examined; of these, 258 met the case definition and 131 did not. For those examined and aged 45 to 64 years (n = 179), 96 persons had arthritis confirmed, of whom 76 met the case definition. Among those examined and aged >/= 65 (n = 210), 150 had arthritis confirmed, of whom 124 met the case definition. Among those without clinical arthritis, 45 of 83 of those aged 45 to 64 years and 40 of 60 of those aged >/= 65 did not meet the case definition. For those aged 45 to 64 years, the weighted sensitivity of the case definition in this sample was 77.4% and the weighted specificity was 58.8%; for those aged >/= 65, the sensitivity was 83.6% and specificity 70.6%. CJS+ had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than DDx+ in the younger age group; CJS+ and DDx+ behaved more comparably in the older age group. CONCLUSION: The case definition based on self-reported CJS and/or DDx appeared to be sensitive in identifying arthritis, but specificity was lower than desirable for those under age 65 years. Better methods of ascertaining arthritis by self-report are needed. Until then, a change in the surveillance case definition for arthritis appears warranted.