BACKGROUND: The Finbalt Health Monitor is a collaborative system for monitoring the health-related behaviour, practices and lifestyles in Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania. This system is based on nationally representative samples and self-administered mailed questionnaires. In comparing the results of national surveys, the awareness of the direction and socioeconomic patterning of the response bias is essential. METHODS: The data were gathered from the cross-sectional surveys conducted in 1998 from Estonia (n = 1362), Finland (n = 3504), Latvia (n = 2322) and Lithuania (n = 1874). An analysis was made of the prevalence of late response, completeness of information obtained from respondents and the magnitude of response bias on the prevalence estimates of health behaviour indicators. RESULTS: The response rates were comparatively high: 68% in Estonia, 70% in Finland, 77% in Latvia and 62% in Lithuania. Late response was weakly related to age, education or place of residence. The total proportion of missing information was below 10% and the sociodemographic patterning for this missing information was similar in all countries. Thus, older and less-educated respondents had more missing information on their questionnaires. Response bias of the prevalence estimates was minimal when it was calculated by using information obtained from late respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The level of nonresponse and missing information was comparable in different countries, not information on health behaviour. Therefore special efforts are needed to design a questionnaire form which appears equally relevant to all respondent groups. The follow-up mailings were an effective way to increase the total response rate, but it was unlikely that they provided an effective way to reach the 'hard core' nonrespondents.
BACKGROUND: The Finbalt Health Monitor is a collaborative system for monitoring the health-related behaviour, practices and lifestyles in Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania. This system is based on nationally representative samples and self-administered mailed questionnaires. In comparing the results of national surveys, the awareness of the direction and socioeconomic patterning of the response bias is essential. METHODS: The data were gathered from the cross-sectional surveys conducted in 1998 from Estonia (n = 1362), Finland (n = 3504), Latvia (n = 2322) and Lithuania (n = 1874). An analysis was made of the prevalence of late response, completeness of information obtained from respondents and the magnitude of response bias on the prevalence estimates of health behaviour indicators. RESULTS: The response rates were comparatively high: 68% in Estonia, 70% in Finland, 77% in Latvia and 62% in Lithuania. Late response was weakly related to age, education or place of residence. The total proportion of missing information was below 10% and the sociodemographic patterning for this missing information was similar in all countries. Thus, older and less-educated respondents had more missing information on their questionnaires. Response bias of the prevalence estimates was minimal when it was calculated by using information obtained from late respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The level of nonresponse and missing information was comparable in different countries, not information on health behaviour. Therefore special efforts are needed to design a questionnaire form which appears equally relevant to all respondent groups. The follow-up mailings were an effective way to increase the total response rate, but it was unlikely that they provided an effective way to reach the 'hard core' nonrespondents.
Authors: Marieke B A Dijkema; Linda Grievink; Rebecca K Stellato; Jan Roorda; Peter G van der Velden Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Taru Kinnunen; Robert F Leeman; Tellervo Korhonen; Zandra N Quiles; Donna M Terwal; Arthur J Garvey; Howard L Hartley Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Johan Van der Heyden; Stefaan Demarest; Koen Van Herck; Dirk De Bacquer; Jean Tafforeau; Herman Van Oyen Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Steven Leadbetter; Nikki A Hawkins; Lawrence E Scholl; Frances A McCarty; Juan L Rodriguez; Naomi Freedner-Maguire; Sharon Hensley Alford; Cecelia A Bellcross; Lucy A Peipins Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 2.830