| Literature DB >> 28180273 |
Daniela Klaus1, Heribert Engstler1, Katharina Mahne1, Julia K Wolff1, Julia Simonson1, Susanne Wurm2, Clemens Tesch-Römer1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28180273 PMCID: PMC5837219 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Epidemiol ISSN: 0300-5771 Impact factor: 7.196
Figure 1.DEAS sample design.
DEAS baseline samples 1996, 2002, 2008 and 2014
| Survey years | 1996 | 2002 | 2008 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germans | Germans | Non-Germans | Germans and non-Germans | Germans and non-Germans | |
| Gross sample of eligible people | 9613 | 8164 | 2343 | 17 366 | 22 139 |
| Respondents: valid face-to-face interviews | 4838 | 3084 | 586 | 6205 | 6002 |
| Respondents: additional questionnaires | 4034 | 2787 | 484 | 4442 | 4295 |
| Response rate | 50.3 | 37.8 | 25.0 | 35.7 | 27.1 |
| Additional questionnaires | 83.4 | 90.4 | 82.6 | 71.6 | 71.6 |
| Birth cohorts | 1911–56 | 1917–62 | 1917–62 | 1923–68 | 1929–74 |
| Age at interview | 40–85 | 40–85 | 40–85 | 40–85 | 40–85 |
| Average duration of face-to-face interview (in minutes) | 67 | 82 | 82 | 83 | 100 |
aGross sample of municipal registries excluding non-eligible persons (those living in an institutional setting such as a nursing home and persons who do not speak German.
bValid interviews as a proportion of the gross sample of eligible people.
cNumber of questionnaires filled in as a proportion of valid face-to-face interviews.
DEAS longitudinal samples 2002, 2008, 2011 and 2014
| Survey year | 2002 | 2008 | 2008 | 2011 | 2011 | 2011 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline year | 1996 | 1996 | 2002 | 1996 | 2002 | 2008 | 1996 | 2002 | 2008 |
| Time span in years | 6 | 12 | 6 | 15 | 9 | 3 | 18 | 12 | 6 |
| Valid re-interviews | 1524 | 991 | 1000 | 1039 | 957 | 2858 | 887 | 866 | 2569 |
| Additional questionnaires | 1437 | 818 | 829 | 876 | 791 | 2338 | 749 | 729 | 2179 |
| Retention rate | 31.5 | 20.5 | 32.4 | 21.5 | 31.0 | 46.1 | 18.3 | 28.1 | 41.4 |
| Valid questionnaires | 94.3 | 82.5 | 82.9 | 84.3 | 82.7 | 81.8 | 84.4 | 84.2 | 84.8 |
| Birth cohorts | 1911–56 | 1911–56 | 1917–62 | 1911–56 | 1917–62 | 1923–68 | 1911–56 | 1917–62 | 1923–68 |
| Age at interview (years) | 46–91 | 52–96 | 46–89 | 55–98 | 49–92 | 43–88 | 58–96 | 52–95 | 46–91 |
Note: aValid interviews in the panel year as a proportion of valid interviews in baseline wave.
bPanel questionnaires completed as a proportion of valid face-to-face panel interviews.
cPossible range of birth cohorts.
DEAS data 1996–2014
| Topics | Examples |
|---|---|
| (Socio-) Demographics | Age, gender, household composition, parents, siblings, education, marital status, citizenship |
| Employment | Employment status, job details (ISCO, working hours, job quality), retirement |
| Activities | Leisure activities, voluntary work, religion |
| Family and social network | Numbers and demographics for children and grandchildren, quality of intergenerational relationships, intimate partner, kin relations, social network |
| Support | Provision and reception of informal (emotional, cognitive, financial and practical) help and care |
| Health | List of illnesses, visits to the doctor, subjective health, pain, sleep, functional health, health-related behaviour (smoking, physical activity, health care, medication) |
| Subjective well-being | Life satisfaction, emotional well-being, depressive symptoms, loneliness |
| Psychological resources | Self-efficacy, coping strategies |
| Housing | Characteristics of private household (owner/tenant, size, costs), characteristics related to retirement home, residential environment (infrastructure, shopping facilities, services for seniors) |
| Finances | Income (sources, amount, personal and household income), assets, debts |
| Attitudes, norms, values, stereotypes | Positive and negative self-perceptions of ageing, religiosity, political orientation, attitudes toward social security |
| Objective measurements (tests) | Digit-symbol test (since 2002) |
| Lung function test (since 2008) | |
| Context data | Structural data at district level (NUTS-3) (e.g., unemployment rate, average household income, population density). Structural data for place of residence (e.g., availability of doctors, public transport). Interviewers’ rating to describe respondent’s home and neighbourhood |
NUTS, nomenclature of territorial units for statistics.