Literature DB >> 24008901

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.

Bartholt Clagett, Katherine L Nathanson, Stephanie L Ciosek, Monique McDermoth, David J Vaughn, Nandita Mitra, Andrew Weiss, Rachel Martonik, Peter A Kanetsky.   

Abstract

Random-digit dialing (RDD) using landline telephone numbers is the historical gold standard for control recruitment in population-based epidemiologic research. However, increasing cell-phone usage and diminishing response rates suggest that the effectiveness of RDD in recruiting a random sample of the general population, particularly for younger target populations, is decreasing. In this study, we compared landline RDD with alternative methods of control recruitment, including RDD using cell-phone numbers and address-based sampling (ABS), to recruit primarily white men aged 18-55 years into a study of testicular cancer susceptibility conducted in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, metropolitan area between 2009 and 2012. With few exceptions, eligible and enrolled controls recruited by means of RDD and ABS were similar with regard to characteristics for which data were collected on the screening survey. While we find ABS to be a comparably effective method of recruiting young males compared with landline RDD, we acknowledge the potential impact that selection bias may have had on our results because of poor overall response rates, which ranged from 11.4% for landline RDD to 1.7% for ABS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  case-control studies; data collection; epidemiologic methods; postal service; telephone; testicular neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24008901      PMCID: PMC3842898          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt164

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


  11 in total

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

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

2.  Survey research methods in evaluation and case-control studies.

Authors:  Graham Kalton; Andrea Piesse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Address-based versus random-digit-dial surveys: comparison of key health and risk indicators.

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

4.  Validity of random-digit-dialing in recruiting controls in a case-control study.

Authors:  Peizhong Peter Wang; Elizabeth Dicks; Xianying Gong; Sharon Buehler; Jinhui Zhao; Josh Squires; Banfield Younghusband; John R McLaughlin; Patrick S Parfrey
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct

5.  Reporting participation in case-control studies.

Authors:  Sara H Olson; Lynda F Voigt; Colin B Begg; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Response rates among control subjects in case-control studies.

Authors:  M L Slattery; S L Edwards; B J Caan; R A Kerber; J D Potter
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.797

7.  Comparability and representativeness of control groups in a case-control study of infant leukemia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Authors:  Susan E Puumala; Logan G Spector; Leslie L Robison; Greta R Bunin; Andrew F Olshan; Amy M Linabery; Michelle A Roesler; Cindy K Blair; Julie A Ross
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Evaluation of random digit dialing as a method of control selection in case-control studies.

Authors:  S H Olson; J L Kelsey; T A Pearson; B Levin
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1992-01-15       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  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

10.  Influence of family size and birth order on risk of cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  Melanie Bevier; Marianne Weires; Hauke Thomsen; Jan Sundquist; Kari Hemminki
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan Cook; Cynthia Fraser; Elizabeth Mitchell; Frank Sullivan; Catherine Jackson; Tyna K Taskila; Heidi Gardner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-02-22

2.  Estimation of the marginal effect of regular drug use on multiple sclerosis in the Iranian population.

Authors:  Ibrahim Abdollahpour; Saharnaz Nedjat; Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Tibor Schuster
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Can respondent driven sampling be used to recruit new mothers? A mixed methods study in metropolitan Washington DC.

Authors:  Rebecca F Carlin; Benjamin Cornwell; Jichuan Wang; Yao Cheng; Anita Mathews; Rosalind P Oden; Linda Y Fu; Rachel Y Moon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Lower abdominal and pelvic radiation and testicular germ cell tumor risk.

Authors:  Kevin T Nead; Nandita Mitra; Benita Weathers; Louisa Pyle; Nnadozie Emechebe; Donna A Pucci; Linda A Jacobs; David J Vaughn; Katherine L Nathanson; Peter A Kanetsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Public opinion about the health care system in Armenia: findings from a cross-sectional telephone survey.

Authors:  Tsovinar Harutyunyan; Varduhi Hayrumyan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.