E Funkhouser1, M Macaluso, X Wang. 1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 35294-0022, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This project was carried out to identify a valid framework for selecting controls to be used in a population-based case-control study of breast cancer, and to compare participation rates and characteristics between women contacted using a standard random digit dialing (RDD) strategy and those who were sent a letter of presentation prior to telephone contact (targeted telephone calls, TTC). METHODS: Twelve hundred women, ages 20-74, were sampled from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) records. Women for whom telephone numbers were obtained (N = 771) were randomly assigned to RDD or TTC. The respondents participated in a brief telephone interview. Odd ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to estimate differences in characteristics of the respondents between the two contact strategies. RESULTS: Telephone numbers were obtained for 79% of women aged > or = 55 years and for only 38% of women aged < 55 years. Interviews were obtained for 48% of women for whom we obtained telephone numbers, and for 77% of women for whom eligibility was confirmed via telephone contact. Participation of target women appeared to be higher for the TTC than the RDD group (42% vs. 35%, p = 0.054). Among respondents who were > or = 55 years old, those in the TTC group were 80% more likely (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 0.9-3.4) to report a serious medical condition than women in the RDD group, 60% less likely (OR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-1.0) to report having used oral contraceptives, and 80% less likely (OR = 0.2, 95% CI: 0.1-0.5) to report having had breast surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of respondents differed according to method of contact. These differences, along with the sampling frame used, should be considered when interpreting findings of case-control studies.
PURPOSE: This project was carried out to identify a valid framework for selecting controls to be used in a population-based case-control study of breast cancer, and to compare participation rates and characteristics between women contacted using a standard random digit dialing (RDD) strategy and those who were sent a letter of presentation prior to telephone contact (targeted telephone calls, TTC). METHODS: Twelve hundred women, ages 20-74, were sampled from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) records. Women for whom telephone numbers were obtained (N = 771) were randomly assigned to RDD or TTC. The respondents participated in a brief telephone interview. Odd ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to estimate differences in characteristics of the respondents between the two contact strategies. RESULTS: Telephone numbers were obtained for 79% of women aged > or = 55 years and for only 38% of women aged < 55 years. Interviews were obtained for 48% of women for whom we obtained telephone numbers, and for 77% of women for whom eligibility was confirmed via telephone contact. Participation of target women appeared to be higher for the TTC than the RDD group (42% vs. 35%, p = 0.054). Among respondents who were > or = 55 years old, those in the TTC group were 80% more likely (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 0.9-3.4) to report a serious medical condition than women in the RDD group, 60% less likely (OR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-1.0) to report having used oral contraceptives, and 80% less likely (OR = 0.2, 95% CI: 0.1-0.5) to report having had breast surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of respondents differed according to method of contact. These differences, along with the sampling frame used, should be considered when interpreting findings of case-control studies.
Authors: Robert W Amler; Stanley Barone; Aysenil Belger; Cheston M Berlin; Christopher Cox; Harry Frank; Michael Goodman; Jean Harry; Stephen R Hooper; Roger Ladda; Judy S LaKind; Paul H Lipkin; Lewis P Lipsitt; Matthew N Lorber; Gary Myers; Ann M Mason; Larry L Needham; Babasaheb Sonawane; Theodore D Wachs; Janice W Yager Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2006-07-21 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Kuan-Fu Chen; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Faisal Siddiqi; Victor D Dinglas; Kristin A Sepulveda; Eddy Fan; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Victor D Dinglas; Minxuan Huang; Kristin A Sepulveda; Mariela Pinedo; Ramona O Hopkins; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Dale M Needham Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Christopher J Miller; James F Burgess; Ellen P Fischer; Deborah J Hodges; Lindsay K Belanger; Jessica M Lipschitz; Siena R Easley; Christopher J Koenig; Regina L Stanley; Jeffrey M Pyne Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Markku Kuusi; J Pekka Nuorti; Leena Maunula; Ilkka Miettinen; Hannu Pesonen; Carl-Henrik von Bonsdorff Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.883