OBJECTIVES: Internet-panel surveys are emerging as a means to quickly and cost-effectively collect health data, and because of their large memberships, they could be used for community-level surveys. To determine the feasibility of using an internet-panel survey to quickly provide community-level data, we conducted a pilot test of a health survey in 3 US metropolitan areas. METHODS: We conducted internet-panel surveys in Cleveland, Ohio; New York, New York; and Seattle, Washington, in 2015. Slightly more than 500 people responded to the survey in each city. We compared weighted unadjusted prevalence estimates from the internet-panel data with estimates from the 2014 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) for the following question in each survey: "Compared to smoking cigarettes, would you say that electronic cigarettes are…much less harmful, less harmful, just as harmful, more harmful, much more harmful, or I've never heard of electronic cigarettes." We used multivariable logistic regression to compare associations of respondents' demographic and health characteristics with perceived harm from e-cigarettes. RESULTS: The prevalence of the perception that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking cigarettes ranged from 35.9% to 39.9% in the internet-panel sites and was 43.0% in HINTS. Most patterns of beliefs and respondent characteristics in the internet-panel data were consistent with patterns in HINTS. We found inconsistent patterns between internet-panel sites and HINTS by race/ethnicity and education. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study found that internet-panel surveys could quickly produce community-level data for targeted public health interventions and evaluation, but they may be limited in producing estimates among subgroups.
OBJECTIVES: Internet-panel surveys are emerging as a means to quickly and cost-effectively collect health data, and because of their large memberships, they could be used for community-level surveys. To determine the feasibility of using an internet-panel survey to quickly provide community-level data, we conducted a pilot test of a health survey in 3 US metropolitan areas. METHODS: We conducted internet-panel surveys in Cleveland, Ohio; New York, New York; and Seattle, Washington, in 2015. Slightly more than 500 people responded to the survey in each city. We compared weighted unadjusted prevalence estimates from the internet-panel data with estimates from the 2014 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) for the following question in each survey: "Compared to smoking cigarettes, would you say that electronic cigarettes are…much less harmful, less harmful, just as harmful, more harmful, much more harmful, or I've never heard of electronic cigarettes." We used multivariable logistic regression to compare associations of respondents' demographic and health characteristics with perceived harm from e-cigarettes. RESULTS: The prevalence of the perception that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking cigarettes ranged from 35.9% to 39.9% in the internet-panel sites and was 43.0% in HINTS. Most patterns of beliefs and respondent characteristics in the internet-panel data were consistent with patterns in HINTS. We found inconsistent patterns between internet-panel sites and HINTS by race/ethnicity and education. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study found that internet-panel surveys could quickly produce community-level data for targeted public health interventions and evaluation, but they may be limited in producing estimates among subgroups.
Entities:
Keywords:
e-cigarettes; internet panel; nonprobability; surveillance
Authors: Barry Portnoy; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jennifer Kincheloe; Nancy Breen; Jean L Olson; Judy McCormally; E Richard Brown Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2014 Sep-Oct
Authors: David W Kaufman; Judith P Kelly; Jeffrey M Rohay; Mary Kathryn Malone; Rachel B Weinstein; Saul Shiffman Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Michael Siegel; William DeJong; Timothy S Naimi; Erin K Fortunato; Alison B Albers; Timothy Heeren; David L Rosenbloom; Craig Ross; Joshua Ostroff; Sergei Rodkin; Charles King; Dina L G Borzekowski; Rajiv N Rimal; Alisa A Padon; Raimee H Eck; David H Jernigan Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Ilona Wężyk-Caba; Małgorzata Znyk; Radosław Zajdel; Łukasz Balwicki; Anna Tyrańska-Fobke; Grzegorz Juszczyk; Karolina Zajdel; Beata Świątkowska; Dorota Kaleta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Joshua Curtis Black; Karilynn Rockhill; Alyssa Forber; Elise Amioka; K Patrick May; Colleen M Haynes; Nabarun Dasgupta; Richard C Dart Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 5.428