Literature DB >> 15868697

Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys.

Timothy J Beebe1, James A McRae, Patricia A Harrison, Michael E Davern, Kathryn B Quinlan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent the substance-use information obtained in surveys is affected by method of data collection. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Questions on the use of alcohol and drugs were administered to samples of Minnesota adults assigned to one of two conditions to test the effect of mode of administration (mail and telephone); 816 persons completed the survey, roughly one half by mail and one half by telephone.
RESULTS: Those interviewed by telephone revealed more heavy use of alcohol, but the mail sample includes disproportionate numbers of respondents from demographic groups that exhibit less use. Controlling for these differences across modes, as well as the differential use of listed telephone numbers and addresses, reduces the effect of mode on one measure of heavy alcohol use to nonsignificance but yields significant effects of mode on others. Specifically, those in the mail condition reported higher levels of illicit drug use in the last year, alcohol use in the last month, and heavy alcohol use in the last 2 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: The greater, and arguably more accurate, reporting of substance use, coupled with potential cost savings, suggests that researchers should consider using mail surveys for investigating substance use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15868697     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Self-report of tobacco use status: comparison of paper-based questionnaire, online questionnaire, and direct face-to-face interview--implications for meaningful use.

Authors:  Mark W Steffen; Mohammad Hassan Murad; J Taylor Hays; Richard D Newcomb; Robin G Molella; Stephen S Cha; Philip T Hagen
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 2.459

4.  Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased.

Authors:  Jon E Hammarstedt; John M Redmond; Asheesh Gupta; Kevin F Dunne; S Pavan Vemula; Benjamin G Domb
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  The effect of mode and context on survey results: analysis of data from the Health Survey for England 2006 and the Boost Survey for London.

Authors:  Sarah Tipping; Steven Hope; Kevin Pickering; Bob Erens; Marilyn A Roth; Jennifer S Mindell
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  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

7.  The effect of training on the use of tobacco-use cessation guidelines in dental settings.

Authors:  Margaret M Walsh; Marilyn Belek; Preeti Prakash; Barbara Grimes; Barbara Heckman; Nathan Kaufman; Richard Meckstroth; Catherine Kavanagh; Jana Murray; Jane A Weintraub; Steven Silverstein; Stuart A Gansky
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.634

8.  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

9.  Following up nonrespondents to an online weight management intervention: randomized trial comparing mail versus telephone.

Authors:  Mick P Couper; Andy Peytchev; Victor J Strecher; Kendra Rothert; Julia Anderson
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2007-06-13       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Does delayed measurement affect patient reports of provider performance? Implications for performance measurement of medical assistance with tobacco cessation: a Dental PBRN study.

Authors:  Thomas K Houston; Joshua S Richman; Heather L Coley; Midge N Ray; Jeroan J Allison; Gregg H Gilbert; Judith S Gordon; Catarina I Kiefe
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-05-08       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.