Stephen J Blumberg1, Julian V Luke. 1. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA. sblumberg@cdc.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We used recent data to reexamine whether the exclusion of adults from households with no telephone or only wireless phones may bias estimates derived from health-related telephone surveys. METHODS: We calculated the difference between estimates for the full population of adults and estimates for adults with landline phones; data were from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: When data from landline telephone surveys were weighted to match demographic characteristics of the full population, bias was generally less than 2 percentage points (range = 0.1-2.4). However, among young adults and low-income adults, we found greater bias (range = 1.7-5.9) for estimates of health insurance, smoking, binge drinking, influenza vaccination, and having a usual place for care. CONCLUSIONS: From 2004 to 2007, the potential for noncoverage bias increased. Bias can be reduced through weighting adjustments. Therefore, telephone surveys limited to landline households may still be appropriate for health surveys of all adults and for surveys of subpopulations regarding health status. However, for some behavioral risk factors and health care service use indicators, caution is warranted when using landline surveys to draw inferences about young or low-income adults.
OBJECTIVES: We used recent data to reexamine whether the exclusion of adults from households with no telephone or only wireless phones may bias estimates derived from health-related telephone surveys. METHODS: We calculated the difference between estimates for the full population of adults and estimates for adults with landline phones; data were from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: When data from landline telephone surveys were weighted to match demographic characteristics of the full population, bias was generally less than 2 percentage points (range = 0.1-2.4). However, among young adults and low-income adults, we found greater bias (range = 1.7-5.9) for estimates of health insurance, smoking, binge drinking, influenza vaccination, and having a usual place for care. CONCLUSIONS: From 2004 to 2007, the potential for noncoverage bias increased. Bias can be reduced through weighting adjustments. Therefore, telephone surveys limited to landline households may still be appropriate for health surveys of all adults and for surveys of subpopulations regarding health status. However, for some behavioral risk factors and health care service use indicators, caution is warranted when using landline surveys to draw inferences about young or low-income adults.
Authors: Martin R Frankel; K P Srinath; David C Hoaglin; Michael P Battaglia; Philip J Smith; Robert A Wright; Meena Khare Journal: Stat Med Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Michael W Link; Michael P Battaglia; Martin R Frankel; Larry Osborn; Ali H Mokdad Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Melissa S Stockwell; Elyse Olshen Kharbanda; Raquel Andres Martinez; Marcos Lara; David Vawdrey; Karthik Natarajan; Vaughn I Rickert Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Lynda F Voigt; Stephen M Schwartz; David R Doody; Spencer C Lee; Christopher I Li Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Daniel A Gundersen; Randal S ZuWallack; James Dayton; Sandra E Echeverría; Cristine D Delnevo Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Philip J Smith; Sharon G Humiston; Edgar K Marcuse; Zhen Zhao; Christina G Dorell; Cynthia Howes; Beth Hibbs Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Bruce Christiansen; Kevin Reeder; Maureen Hill; Timothy B Baker; Michael C Fiore Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.582