Literature DB >> 11255585

Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews.

L Kraus1, R Augustin.   

Abstract

AIMS: Compared with surveys using self-administered questionnaires, telephone interviews generally yield higher coverage rates, have a lower proportion of missing values and result in fewer inconsistencies. Meta-analyses, however, show that responses to sensitive questions by telephone tend to be biased by social expectations. The aim of the study is to examine whether responses on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems differ with respect to mode of administration (self-administered vs. telephone). Design and participants. Data were analysed from the 1995 self-administered survey among 6427 subjects and from telephone surveys conducted annually between 1994 and 1996 yielding a pooled sample of 6193 subjects. MEASUREMENTS: Alcohol consumption within the last 30 days was measured using a beverage-specific quantity-frequency index. For a summary measure responses were converted into pure alcohol (ethanol) per day and categorized into no alcohol consumption (0 g), non-hazardous consumption (< or = 20 g for female and < or = 40 g for males) and hazardous consumption (> 20 g for females and > 40 g for males). Alcohol-related problems were assessed using the CAGE questionnaire with a cut-off point of at least two positive responses.
FINDINGS: Using (cumulative) logistic regression, a significant mode effect was found for both alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. Lower beverage-specific prevalences in the telephone mode were found to be responsible for the difference in the distribution of the summary consumption measure.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that patterns of drinking and alcohol-related problems are more easily reported in self-administration questionnaires compared to telephone interviews.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11255585     DOI: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9634599.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Addiction        ISSN: 0965-2140            Impact factor:   6.526


  23 in total

1.  Differences in pathological gambling prevalence estimates: facts or artefacts?

Authors:  Monika Sassen; Ludwig Kraus; Gerhard Bühringer
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.035

2.  Mode effects between computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration of the PROMIS(®) pediatric measures, self- and proxy report.

Authors:  Brooke E Magnus; Yang Liu; Jason He; Hally Quinn; David Thissen; Heather E Gross; Darren A DeWalt; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-01-02       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Prevalence trends in lifestyle-related risk factors.

Authors:  Henry Völzke; Till Ittermann; Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Sebastian E Baumeister; Sabine Schipf; Dietrich Alte; Reiner Biffar; Ulrich John; Wolfgang Hoffmann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples.

Authors:  Matthias Rose; Andrea Bezjak
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Understanding the Role of Context-Specific Drinking in Neglectful Parenting Behaviors.

Authors:  Bridget Freisthler; Jennifer Price Wolf; Michelle Johnson-Motoyama
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 2.826

6.  Comparison of provider-documented and patient-reported brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in VA outpatients.

Authors:  Gwen T Lapham; Anna D Rubinsky; Susan M Shortreed; Eric J Hawkins; Julie Richards; Emily C Williams; Douglas Berger; Laura J Chavez; Daniel R Kivlahan; Katharine A Bradley
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 4.492

7.  Alcohol consumption and the risk of stroke among hypertensive and overweight men.

Authors:  Sanna H Rantakömi; Jari A Laukkanen; Juhani Sivenius; Jussi Kauhanen; Sudhir Kurl
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2012-09-22       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: an IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative.

Authors:  Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Barbara Gandek; Arthur A Stone; Doerte U Junghaenel; John E Ware
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Universal intervention effects on substance use among young adults mediated by delayed adolescent substance initiation.

Authors:  Richard Spoth; Linda Trudeau; Max Guyll; Chungyeol Shin; Cleve Redmond
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2009-08

10.  Universal family-focused intervention with young adolescents: effects on health-risking sexual behaviors and STDs among young adults.

Authors:  Richard Spoth; Scott Clair; Linda Trudeau
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2014-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.