Literature DB >> 2705425

A comparison of response rate, data quality, and cost in the collection of data on sexual history and personal behaviors. Mail survey approaches and in-person interview.

S J Rolnick1, C R Gross, J Garrard, R W Gibson.   

Abstract

The authors examined differences in rate of response, data quality, and cost between mail approaches and in-person interview in the collection of data on sexual history and personal behaviors. A sample of women from a midwestern United States university (n = 342) was identified from health service medical records as having been seen for a sexually transmitted disease (cases) or a contraceptive visit (controls) during the latter half of 1985. The women were randomly assigned to one of three data collection strategies. A total of 268 subjects (78%) participated. Results indicated no differences in validity by method of data collection or by case-control status but there were significant differences in completeness, cost, and response rates. In-person interviews resulted in more complete data than mail approaches, although all instruments had low proportions of missing data (0.001-0.006). Response rate differences were not found when data collection methodologies were compared (75-82%) but were found in case-control analyses. Cases were consistently less likely to participate and significantly less likely to respond by mail (p less than 0.05). The cost of the in-person interview was approximately four times that of the mail survey for the data collection. Implications of the case-control response rate difference suggest that mail methodologies, although low in cost, may introduce sampling bias in studies of sexually transmitted diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2705425     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115209

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


  8 in total

1.  A pilot Swedish twin study of affective illness including hospital- and population-ascertained subsamples: results of model fitting.

Authors:  K S Kendler; N L Pedersen; M C Neale; A A Mathé
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.805

2.  Adverse reactions associated with simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines to travelers.

Authors:  C Falvo; H Horowitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Frequency of sexually transmitted diseases among university students.

Authors:  H Naccache; G Manhes; C Fortin; D Nadeau; B Duval; G Godin; R Boyer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-06-01       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Sexually transmitted diseases among young heterosexual urban adults.

Authors:  S L Melnick; G L Burke; L L Perkins; H McCreath; D T Gilbertson; S Sidney; S B Hulley
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

5.  Impact of different privacy conditions and incentives on survey response rate, participant representativeness, and disclosure of sensitive information: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Maureen Murdoch; Alisha Baines Simon; Melissa Anderson Polusny; Ann Kay Bangerter; Joseph Patrick Grill; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Melissa Ruth Partin
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Does the management of personal integrity information lead to differing participation rates and response patterns in mental health surveys with young adults? A three-armed methodological experiment.

Authors:  Claes Andersson; Marcus Bendtsen; Petra Lindfors; Olof Molander; Philip Lindner; Naira Topooco; Karin Engström; Anne H Berman
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2021-08-21       Impact factor: 4.035

Review 7.  Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Authors:  Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

8.  Ethnicity and neighbourhood deprivation determines the response rate in sexual dysfunction surveys.

Authors:  Lasantha S Malavige; Pabasi Wijesekara; Dhanesha Seneviratne Epa; Priyanga Ranasinghe; Jonathan C Levy
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.