Robert C McMillen1, Jonathan P Winickoff2, Karen Wilson3, Susanne Tanski4, Jonathan D Klein5. 1. AAP Tobacco Consortium and Julius B. Richmond Center, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, USA Social Science Research Center and Department of Psychology, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA. 2. AAP Tobacco Consortium and Julius B. Richmond Center, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, USA MGH Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. AAP Tobacco Consortium and Julius B. Richmond Center, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, USA Children's Hospital Colorado, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA. 4. AAP Tobacco Consortium and Julius B. Richmond Center, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, USA Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. 5. AAP Tobacco Consortium and Julius B. Richmond Center, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the comparability of self-reported smoking prevalence estimates from a dual-frame survey with those from two large-scale, national surveys. METHODS: The Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control (SCS-TC) obtained self-reported current smoking status via a dual-frame methodology in the fall of 2010. One frame used random digit dialling procedures and consisted of households with a landline telephone; the other frame consisted of a population-based probability-based online panel. Current smoking prevalence was compared with national estimates from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). RESULTS: 18.3% (95% CI 17.0% to 19.6%) of SCS-TC respondents reported current smoking. NHIS and NHANES estimates found 19.4% (95% CI 18.8% to 20.1%) and 20.3% (95% CI 18.7% to 22.1%), respectively, reporting current smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence estimates for cigarette smoking obtained from the dual-frame SCS-TC are comparable to those from other national surveys. A mixed-mode approach may be a useful strategy to transition cross-sectional surveys with established trend data to newer dual-frame designs to maintain compatibility with surveys from previous years and to include the growing number of households that do not have landline telephones. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the comparability of self-reported smoking prevalence estimates from a dual-frame survey with those from two large-scale, national surveys. METHODS: The Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control (SCS-TC) obtained self-reported current smoking status via a dual-frame methodology in the fall of 2010. One frame used random digit dialling procedures and consisted of households with a landline telephone; the other frame consisted of a population-based probability-based online panel. Current smoking prevalence was compared with national estimates from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). RESULTS: 18.3% (95% CI 17.0% to 19.6%) of SCS-TC respondents reported current smoking. NHIS and NHANES estimates found 19.4% (95% CI 18.8% to 20.1%) and 20.3% (95% CI 18.7% to 22.1%), respectively, reporting current smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence estimates for cigarette smoking obtained from the dual-frame SCS-TC are comparable to those from other national surveys. A mixed-mode approach may be a useful strategy to transition cross-sectional surveys with established trend data to newer dual-frame designs to maintain compatibility with surveys from previous years and to include the growing number of households that do not have landline telephones. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disparities; Prevention; Surveillance and monitoring
Authors: Karen M Wilson; Michelle Torok; Robert McMillen; Susanne Tanski; Jonathan D Klein; Jonathan P Winickoff Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anne C Grunseit; Eloise Howse; Erika Bohn-Goldbaum; Jo Mitchell; Adrian E Bauman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Peter Messeri; Jennifer Cantrell; Paul Mowery; Morgane Bennett; Elizabeth Hair; Donna Vallone Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240