Literature DB >> 14651425

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

Graeme Hawthorne1.   

Abstract

When collecting data researchers can interview participants, conduct telephone interviews, or mailout questionnaires. Often mixed methods are used. Whether these methods produce equivalent data is under-researched in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) field. In addition, the effect of using filter questions has not been researched among HRQoL multi-attribute utility instruments. This study randomly sampled from Melbourne, Australia, and employed a test-retest design to investigate whether mail or telephone interview made any difference to Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument utility scores. A filter question AQoL version investigated the effect of filters on scores. There was no significant difference in standard AQoL scores between mail self-completion and telephone interview, regardless of which was administered first. Inclusion of filter questions encouraged respondents to select the best response category thereby screening out minor health conditions. The effect was to increase utility scores by 0.06 or 7%. This effect has not been previously reported in utility instruments and has profound implications for economic evaluations using cost-utility analysis; there are implications for researchers using filter questions in general. In conclusion, researchers should feel confident that utility scores elicited from the standard AQoL through self-completion mail and telephone interview administrations are directly comparable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14651425     DOI: 10.1023/a:1026103511161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  21 in total

1.  The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G Hawthorne; J Richardson; R Osborne
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The SF-12 as a population health measure: an exploratory examination of potential for application.

Authors:  J N Burdine; M R Felix; A L Abel; C J Wiltraut; Y J Musselman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members.

Authors:  Floyd Jackson Fowler; Patricia M Gallagher; Vickie L Stringfellow; Alan M Zaslavsky; Joseph W Thompson; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.983

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

Authors:  Jan Brøgger; Per Bakke; Geir E Eide; Amund Gulsvik
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2002-03-15       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments.

Authors:  G Hawthorne; J Richardson; N A Day
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.709

6.  Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey.

Authors:  A Hill; J Roberts; P Ewings; D Gunnell
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1997-06

7.  A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview.

Authors:  B I O'Toole; D Battistutta; A Long; K Crouch
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey.

Authors:  C A McHorney; M Kosinski; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys.

Authors:  J Siemiatycki
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  The effect of mode of administration on medical outcomes study health ratings and EuroQol scores in AIDS.

Authors:  A W Wu; D L Jacobson; R A Berzon; D A Revicki; C van der Horst; C J Fichtenbaum; M S Saag; L Lynn; D Hardy; J Feinberg
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  5 in total

1.  Short postal questionnaire and selective clinical examination combined with repeat mailing and telephone reminders as a method of follow-up in hernia surgery.

Authors:  M López-Cano; R Vilallonga; J L Sánchez; E Hermosilla; M Armengol
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  Effects of method of administration on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ-G11-14).

Authors:  Sandra Malter; Christian Hirsch; Daniel R Reissmann; Oliver Schierz; Katrin Bekes
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-02-22       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  A population-based lifestyle intervention to promote healthy weight and physical activity in people with cardiac disease: the PANACHE (Physical Activity, Nutrition And Cardiac HEalth) study protocol.

Authors:  Janice Sangster; Susan Furber; Margaret Allman-Farinelli; Marion Haas; Philayrath Phongsavan; Andy Mark; Adrian Bauman
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.298

4.  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

5.  Effect of method of administration on the oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS-G).

Authors:  Katrin Bekes; Cia Solanke; Tessa Waldhart; Julia Priller; Tanja Stamm
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.573

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.