Literature DB >> 21071602

Feasibility of including cellular telephone numbers in random digit dialing for epidemiologic case-control studies.

Lynda F Voigt1, Stephen M Schwartz, David R Doody, Spencer C Lee, Christopher I Li.   

Abstract

The usefulness of landline random digit dialing (RDD) in epidemiologic studies is threatened by the rapid increase in households with only cellular telephone service. This study assessed the feasibility of including cellular telephone numbers in RDD and differences between young adults with landline telephones and those with only cellular telephones. Between 2008 and 2009, a total of 9,023 cellular telephone numbers were called and 43.8% were successfully screened; 248 men and 249 women who resided in 3 Washington State counties, were 20-44 years of age, and used only cellular telephones were interviewed. They were compared with 332 men and 526 women with landline telephones interviewed as controls for 2 case-control studies conducted in parallel with cellular telephone interviewing. Cellular-only users were more likely to be college educated and less likely to have fathered/birthed a child than were their landline counterparts. Male cellular-only users were less likely to be obese and more likely to exercise, to be Hispanic, and to have lower incomes, while female cellular-only users were more likely to be single than landline respondents. Including cellular telephone numbers in RDD is feasible and should be incorporated into epidemiologic studies that rely on this method to ascertain subjects, although low screening rates could hamper the representativeness of such a sample.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21071602      PMCID: PMC3025640          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq322

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


  5 in total

1.  Wireless substitution: state-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-December 2007.

Authors:  Stephen J Blumberg; Julian V Luke; Gestur Davidson; Michael E Davern; Tzy-Chyi Yu; Karen Soderberg
Journal:  Natl Health Stat Report       Date:  2009-03-11

2.  Reevaluating the need for concern regarding noncoverage bias in landline surveys.

Authors:  Stephen J Blumberg; Julian V Luke
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Flexible Frames and Control Sampling in Case-Control Studies: Weighters (Survey Statisticians) Versus Anti-Weighters (Epidemiologists).

Authors:  Richard F Potthoff; Susan Halabi; Joellen M Schildkraut; Beth Newman
Journal:  Am Stat       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 8.710

4.  Comparing the reliability of responses to telephone-administered versus self-administered Web-based surveys in a case-control study of adult malignant brain cancer.

Authors:  Kristin M Rankin; Garth H Rauscher; Bridget McCarthy; Serap Erdal; Pat Lada; Dora Il'yasova; Faith Davis
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Declining estimated prevalence of alcohol drinking and smoking among young adults nationally: artifacts of sample undercoverage?

Authors:  Cristine D Delnevo; Daniel A Gundersen; Brett T Hagman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 4.897

  5 in total
  13 in total

1.  Estimating physical activity using a cell phone questionnaire sent by means of short message service (SMS): a randomized population-based study.

Authors:  Ylva Trolle Lagerros; Sven Sandin; Christin Bexelius; Jan-Eric Litton; Marie Löf
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Secondhand smoke exposure and smoking behavior among young adult bar patrons.

Authors:  Sara Kalkhoran; Torsten B Neilands; Pamela M Ling
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Comparison of address-based sampling and random-digit dialing methods for recruiting young men as controls in a case-control study of testicular cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Bartholt Clagett; Katherine L Nathanson; Stephanie L Ciosek; Monique McDermoth; David J Vaughn; Nandita Mitra; Andrew Weiss; Rachel Martonik; Peter A Kanetsky
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Arie Kapteyn
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2015-09

5.  A randomized trial to assess the effect of a research informational pamphlet on telephone survey completion rates among older Latinos.

Authors:  Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Lisa Phan; Anita L Stewart; Celia Kaplan; Gina Moreno-John; Anna M Nápoles
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Effect of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate on breast cancer risk among women 20 to 44 years of age.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Elisabeth F Beaber; Mei Tzu Chen Tang; Peggy L Porter; Janet R Daling; Kathleen E Malone
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk overall and by molecular subtype among young women.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Kathleen E Malone; Mei-Tzu Chen Tang; William E Barlow; Peggy L Porter; Janet R Daling; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Recruitment using mobile telephones in an Irish general population sexual health survey: challenges and practical solutions.

Authors:  Orla McBride; Karen Morgan; Hannah McGee
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Knowledge and attitude towards total knee arthroplasty among the public in Saudi Arabia: a nationwide population-based study.

Authors:  Omar A Al-Mohrej; Faris O Alshammari; Abdulrahman M Aljuraisi; Lujain A Bin Amer; Emad M Masuadi; Nader S Al-Kenani
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Evaluating the use of friend or family controls in epidemiologic case-control studies.

Authors:  Charlie Zhong; Myles Cockburn; Wendy Cozen; Jenna Voutsinas; James V Lacey; Jianning Luo; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Leslie Bernstein; Sophia S Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 2.890

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.