Literature DB >> 22250782

Deployment of a mixed-mode data collection strategy does not reduce nonresponse bias in a general population health survey.

Timothy J Beebe1, Donna D McAlpine, Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss, Sarah Jenkins, Lindsey Haas, Michael E Davern.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess nonresponse bias in a mixed-mode general population health survey. DATA SOURCES: Secondary analysis of linked survey sample frame and administrative data, including demographic and health-related information. STUDY
DESIGN: The survey was administered by mail with telephone follow-up to nonrespondents after two mailings. To determine whether an additional mail contact or mode switch reduced nonresponse bias, we compared all respondents (N = 3,437) to respondents from each mailing and telephone respondents to the sample frame (N = 6,716). PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Switching modes did not minimize the under-representation of younger people, nonwhites, those with congestive heart failure, high users of office-based services, and low-utilizers of the emergency room but did reduce the over-representation of older adults.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple contact and mixed-mode surveys may increase response rates, but they do not necessarily reduce nonresponse bias. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22250782      PMCID: PMC3330173          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01369.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  23 in total

1.  Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: description and an illustration.

Authors:  R M Groves; E Singer; A Corning
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2000

2.  Raising response rates: getting to yes.

Authors:  P Hartge
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.822

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.  Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey.

Authors:  S Keeter; C Miller; A Kohut; R M Groves; S Presser
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2000

5.  Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research.

Authors:  S J Jacobsen; Z Xia; M E Campion; C H Darby; M F Plevak; K D Seltman; L J Melton
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  The HIPAA authorization form and effects on survey response rates, nonresponse bias, and data quality: a randomized community study.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; Nicholas J Talley; Michael Camilleri; Sarah M Jenkins; Kari J Anderson; G Richard Locke
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Bias in analytic research.

Authors:  D L Sackett
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1979

8.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

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.  Use of a medical records linkage system to enumerate a dynamic population over time: the Rochester epidemiology project.

Authors:  Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  8 in total

1.  Optimizing patient-reported outcome and risk factor reporting from cancer survivors: a randomized trial of four different survey methods among colorectal cancer survivors.

Authors:  Heather Spencer Feigelson; Carmit K McMullen; Sarah Madrid; Andrew T Sterrett; J David Powers; Erica Blum-Barnett; Pamala A Pawloski; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Virginia P Quinn; David E Arterburn; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 4.442

Review 2.  Response rate differences between web and alternative data collection methods for public health research: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Cauane Blumenberg; Aluísio J D Barros
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  Testing the Impact of Mixed-Mode Designs (Mail and Web) and Multiple Contact Attempts within Mode (Mail or Web) on Clinician Survey Response.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; Robert M Jacobson; Sarah M Jenkins; Kandace A Lackore; Lila J Finney Rutten
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Screening for Barrett's esophagus: results from a population-based survey.

Authors:  Milli Gupta; Timothy J Beebe; Kelly T Dunagan; Cathy D Schleck; Alan R Zinsmeister; Nicholas J Talley; G Richard Locke; Prasad G Iyer
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Participation Bias in a Survey of Community Patients With Heart Failure.

Authors:  Irmak Simsek; Sheila M Manemann; Kathleen J Yost; Alanna M Chamberlain; Matteo Fabbri; Ruoxiang Jiang; Susan A Weston; Veronique L Roger
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  A Comparison of Web and Telephone Responses From a National HIV and AIDS Survey.

Authors:  Marcella K Jones; Liviana Calzavara; Dan Allman; Catherine A Worthington; Mark Tyndall; James Iveniuk
Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill       Date:  2016-07-29

7.  Perceived Social Isolation and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure.

Authors:  Sheila M Manemann; Alanna M Chamberlain; Véronique L Roger; Joan M Griffin; Cynthia M Boyd; Thomas K M Cudjoe; Daniel Jensen; Susan A Weston; Matteo Fabbri; Ruoxiang Jiang; Lila J Finney Rutten
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 8.  Harmonizing and consolidating the measurement of patient-reported information at health care institutions: a position statement of the Mayo Clinic.

Authors:  David T Eton; Timothy J Beebe; Philip T Hagen; Michele Y Halyard; Victor M Montori; James M Naessens; Jeff A Sloan; Carrie A Thompson; Douglas L Wood
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2014-02-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.