Literature DB >> 11882531

Comparison of telephone and postal survey modes on respiratory symptoms and risk factors.

Jan Brøgger1, Per Bakke, Geir E Eide, Amund Gulsvik.   

Abstract

Little is known about the comparability of postal and telephone survey modes in epidemiology. A cross-sectional, population-based study (n = 25,000) of lung disease was performed in 1998-1999 in two regions of Norway. Initial surveying was done by postal questionnaire. A 1% random sample (n = 171) of previous postal responders were resurveyed by telephone or cellular contact. The response rate was 67% on the telephone/cellular interview. Fewer incomplete answers were given by telephone than by mail. A lower prevalence was found by telephone for morning cough and exposure to passive smoking at work or home. Reproducibility was high for asthma, hay fever, wheezing, and attacks of breathlessness. Moderate reproducibility was seen for symptoms of chronic bronchitis. Reproducibility was low for indoor and work environment, although it was high for early life factors. Concordance coefficients were high for all continuous measures such as height, body weight, and pack-years. The authors conclude that the comparability between the postal and the telephone survey modes was good. The telephone survey mode gave more complete information. Survey mode may have a moderate effect on study results, depending on the specific questions asked.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11882531     DOI: 10.1093/aje/155.6.572

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  15 in total

1.  The effect of different methods of collecting data: mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement.

Authors:  Graeme Hawthorne
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Sample size estimation in research with dependent measures and dichotomous outcomes.

Authors:  Kevin L Delucchi
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Comparability of Internet and telephone data in a survey on the respiratory health of children.

Authors:  Céline Plante; Louis Jacques; Serge Chevalier; Michel Fournier
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.409

4.  Design of exposure questionnaires for epidemiological studies.

Authors:  M J Nieuwenhuijsen
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.402

5.  Equivalence of mail and telephone responses to the CAHPS Hospital Survey.

Authors:  Han de Vries; Marc N Elliott; Kimberly A Hepner; San D Keller; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Accuracy and reliability of self-reported weight and height in the Sister Study.

Authors:  Cynthia J Lin; Lisa A DeRoo; Sara R Jacobs; Dale P Sandler
Journal:  Public Health Nutr       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 4.022

7.  A 5-year follow-up study of aggression at work and psychological health.

Authors:  Annie Hogh; Marie Engström Henriksson; Hermann Burr
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2005

8.  Ethnic differences in reported smoking behaviors in face-to-face and telephone interviews.

Authors:  Orna Baron-Epel; Amalia Haviv-Messika; Manfred S Green; Dorit Nitzan Kalutzki
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Effects of phone versus mail survey methods on the measurement of health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioural problems in adolescents.

Authors:  Michael Erhart; Ralf M Wetzel; André Krügel; Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Randomised controlled comparison of the Health Survey Short Form (SF-12) and the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) in telephone interviews versus self-administered questionnaires. Are the results equivalent?

Authors:  Margitta Lungenhausen; Stefan Lange; Christoph Maier; Claudia Schaub; Hans J Trampisch; Heinz G Endres
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-11-22       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.