Bernard Baffour1, Michele Haynes2, Shane Dinsdale2, Mark Western2, Darren Pennay3,4. 1. Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland. b.baffour@uq.edu.au. 2. Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland. 3. Social Research Centre, Victoria. 4. Australian Centre for Applied Social Research Methods, Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Australian population that relies on mobile phones exclusively has increased from 5% in 2005 to 29% in 2014. Failing to include this mobile-only population leads to a potential bias in estimates from landline-based telephone surveys. This paper considers the impacts on selected health prevalence estimates with and without the mobile-only population. METHODS: Using data from the Australian Health Survey - which, for the first time, included a question on telephone status - we examined demographic, geographic and health differences between the landline-accessible and mobile-only population. These groups were also compared to the full population, controlling for the sampling design and differential non-response patterns in the observed sample through weighting and benchmarking. RESULTS: The landline-accessible population differs from the mobile-only population for selected health measures resulting in biased prevalence estimates for smoking, alcohol risk and private health insurance coverage in the full population. The differences remain even after adjusting for age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Using landline telephones only for conducting population health surveys will have an impact on prevalence rate estimates of health risk factors due to the differing profiles of the mobile-only population from the landline-accessible population.
BACKGROUND: The Australian population that relies on mobile phones exclusively has increased from 5% in 2005 to 29% in 2014. Failing to include this mobile-only population leads to a potential bias in estimates from landline-based telephone surveys. This paper considers the impacts on selected health prevalence estimates with and without the mobile-only population. METHODS: Using data from the Australian Health Survey - which, for the first time, included a question on telephone status - we examined demographic, geographic and health differences between the landline-accessible and mobile-only population. These groups were also compared to the full population, controlling for the sampling design and differential non-response patterns in the observed sample through weighting and benchmarking. RESULTS: The landline-accessible population differs from the mobile-only population for selected health measures resulting in biased prevalence estimates for smoking, alcohol risk and private health insurance coverage in the full population. The differences remain even after adjusting for age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Using landline telephones only for conducting population health surveys will have an impact on prevalence rate estimates of health risk factors due to the differing profiles of the mobile-only population from the landline-accessible population.
Authors: Joseph Hanna; Damien V Cordery; David G Steel; Walter Davis; Timothy C Harrold Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 4.615
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