Juliet Richters1, Paul B Badcock2, Judy M Simpson3, David Shellard4, Chris Rissel5, Richard O de Visser6, Andrew E Grulich7, Anthony M A Smith2. 1. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. 2. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, 215 Franklin Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia. 3. Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building (A27), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. 4. Hunter Valley Research Foundation, PO Box 322, Newcastle, NSW 2300, Australia. 5. Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre (D17), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. 6. School of Psychology, Pevensey 1, University of Sussex, Falmer BN1 9QH, UK. 7. The Kirby Institute, Wallace Wurth Building, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Background This paper describes the methods and process of the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. METHODS: A representative sample of the Australian population was contacted by landline and mobile phone modified random-digit dialling in 2012-13. Computer-assisted telephone interviews elicited sociodemographic and health details as well as sexual behaviour and attitudes. For analysis, the sample was weighted to reflect the study design and further weighted to reflect the location, age and sex distribution of the population at the 2011 Census. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 9963 men and 10131 women aged 16-69 years from all states and territories. The overall participation rate among eligible people was 66.2% (63.9% for landline men, 67.9% for landline women and 66.5% for mobile respondents). Accounting for the survey design and adjusting to match the 2011 Census resulted in a weighted sample of 20094 people (10056 men and 10038 women). The sample was broadly representative of the Australian population, although as in most surveys, people with higher education and higher status occupations were over-represented. Data quality was high, with the great majority saying they were not at all or only slightly embarrassed by the questionnaire and almost all saying they were 90-100% honest in their answers. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of methods and design in the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships, together with the high participation rate, strongly suggests that the results of the study are robust and broadly representative of the Australian population.
UNLABELLED: Background This paper describes the methods and process of the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. METHODS: A representative sample of the Australian population was contacted by landline and mobile phone modified random-digit dialling in 2012-13. Computer-assisted telephone interviews elicited sociodemographic and health details as well as sexual behaviour and attitudes. For analysis, the sample was weighted to reflect the study design and further weighted to reflect the location, age and sex distribution of the population at the 2011 Census. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 9963 men and 10131 women aged 16-69 years from all states and territories. The overall participation rate among eligible people was 66.2% (63.9% for landline men, 67.9% for landline women and 66.5% for mobile respondents). Accounting for the survey design and adjusting to match the 2011 Census resulted in a weighted sample of 20094 people (10056 men and 10038 women). The sample was broadly representative of the Australian population, although as in most surveys, people with higher education and higher status occupations were over-represented. Data quality was high, with the great majority saying they were not at all or only slightly embarrassed by the questionnaire and almost all saying they were 90-100% honest in their answers. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of methods and design in the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships, together with the high participation rate, strongly suggests that the results of the study are robust and broadly representative of the Australian population.
Authors: Courtney Robertson; Ashleigh Lin; Grant Smith; Anna Yeung; Penelope Strauss; Jennifer Nicholas; Elizabeth Davis; Tim Jones; Lisa Gibson; Juliet Richters; Martin de Bock Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-08-23
Authors: Josefine Bernhard Andresen; Christian Graugaard; Mikael Andersson; Mikkel Kjær Bahnsen; Morten Frisch Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2022-09-20
Authors: Eneyi E Kpokiri; Dan Wu; Megan L Srinivas; Juliana Anderson; Lale Say; Osmo Kontula; Noor A Ahmad; Chelsea Morroni; Chimaraoke Izugbara; Richard de Visser; Georgina Y Oduro; Evelyn Gitau; Alice Welbourn; Michele Andrasik; Wendy V Norman; Soazig Clifton; Amanda Gabster; Amanda Gesselman; Chantal Smith; Nicole Prause; Adesola Olumide; Jennifer T Erausquin; Peter Muriuki; Ariane van der Straten; Martha Nicholson; Kathryn A O'Connell; Meggie Mwoka; Nathalie Bajos; Catherine H Mercer; Lianne Marie Gonsalves; Joseph D Tucker Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 4.199
Authors: Lucy Watchirs Smith; Rebecca Guy; Louisa Degenhardt; Anna Yeung; Chris Rissel; Juliet Richters; Bette Liu Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ben Mathews; Rosana Pacella; Michael Dunne; James Scott; David Finkelhor; Franziska Meinck; Daryl J Higgins; Holly Erskine; Hannah J Thomas; Divna Haslam; Nam Tran; Ha Le; Nikki Honey; Karen Kellard; David Lawrence Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Iryna B Zablotska; Richard Gray; Bill Whittaker; Martin Holt; Edwina Wright; Garrett Prestage; Darryl O'Donnell; Andrew E Grulich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240