Merrian J Brooks1, Todd Bear2, Karen Hacker3, Edmund M Ricci2, Abigail Foulds2, Heather Anderson4, Claire Raible4, Elizabeth Miller5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: merrian.brooks2@chp.edu. 2. Institute for Evaluation Science in Community Health, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Department of Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: When school districts choose not to participate in adolescent health behavior surveys, tracking adolescent health indicators can be challenging. We conducted a countywide youth behavior survey outside of the school system. Our purpose is to describe alternative methods used for gathering these data reliably and ethically. METHODS: We implemented two parallel surveys with youth ages 14-19 residing in a mid-sized county with urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods. An anonymous phone-based survey used computer-assisted telephone interviewing with a live interviewer in conjunction with an interactive voice response system to survey youth via random digit dialing of landlines and cell phones. A concurrent in-person anonymous survey was conducted with marginalized youth (from juvenile detention centers, shelters, and residential facilities), using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing technology. The survey measures included the Centers for Disease Control Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System and additional questions about social supports, neighborhood, and adverse childhood experiences. RESULTS: Data were collected between February and December 2014. The phone-based sample recruited 1813 participants; the marginalized sample included 262 youth. Several strategies ensured anonymity and reduced coercion. The final phone-based sample was similar to demographics of the county population. The marginalized youth sample captured out-of-home youth who may have been missed with phone-based sampling alone. CONCLUSIONS: We review alternative strategies for obtaining population-based adolescent health data without the cooperation of schools. These techniques can provide a basis to collect data that may help direct resources and policies relevant to needs of local youth. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: When school districts choose not to participate in adolescent health behavior surveys, tracking adolescent health indicators can be challenging. We conducted a countywide youth behavior survey outside of the school system. Our purpose is to describe alternative methods used for gathering these data reliably and ethically. METHODS: We implemented two parallel surveys with youth ages 14-19 residing in a mid-sized county with urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods. An anonymous phone-based survey used computer-assisted telephone interviewing with a live interviewer in conjunction with an interactive voice response system to survey youth via random digit dialing of landlines and cell phones. A concurrent in-person anonymous survey was conducted with marginalized youth (from juvenile detention centers, shelters, and residential facilities), using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing technology. The survey measures included the Centers for Disease Control Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System and additional questions about social supports, neighborhood, and adverse childhood experiences. RESULTS: Data were collected between February and December 2014. The phone-based sample recruited 1813 participants; the marginalized sample included 262 youth. Several strategies ensured anonymity and reduced coercion. The final phone-based sample was similar to demographics of the county population. The marginalized youth sample captured out-of-home youth who may have been missed with phone-based sampling alone. CONCLUSIONS: We review alternative strategies for obtaining population-based adolescent health data without the cooperation of schools. These techniques can provide a basis to collect data that may help direct resources and policies relevant to needs of local youth. Copyright Â
Authors: John Schneider; Jennifer A Makelarski; Martha Van Haitsma; Rebecca B Lipton; Emily Abramsohn; Diane S Lauderdale; Stacy Tessler Lindau Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Michelle M Yore; Sandra A Ham; Barbara E Ainsworth; Judy Kruger; Jared P Reis; Harold W Kohl; Caroline A Macera Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.411