Literature DB >> 28557627

A Nonresponse Bias Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

Aaron Maitland1, Amy Lin1, David Cantor1, Mike Jones1, Richard P Moser2, Bradford W Hesse2, Terisa Davis1, Kelly D Blake2.   

Abstract

We conducted a nonresponse bias analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 4, Cycles 1 and 3, collected in 2011 and 2013, respectively, using three analysis methods: comparison of response rates for subgroups, comparison of estimates with weighting adjustments and external benchmarks, and level-of-effort analysis. Areas with higher concentrations of low socioeconomic status, higher concentrations of young households, and higher concentrations of minority and Hispanic populations had lower response rates. Estimates of health information seeking behavior were higher in HINTS compared to the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The HINTS estimate of doctors always explaining things in a way that the patient understands was not significantly different from the same estimate from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS); however, the HINTS estimate of health professionals always spending enough time with the patient was significantly lower than the same estimate from MEPS. A level-of-effort analysis found that those who respond later in the survey field period were less likely to have looked for information about health in the past 12 months, but found only small differences between early and late respondents for the majority of estimates examined. There is some evidence that estimates from HINTS could be biased toward finding higher levels of health information seeking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28557627      PMCID: PMC6114127          DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2017.1324539

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Commun        ISSN: 1081-0730


  4 in total

1.  The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment.

Authors:  R Curtin; S Presser; E Singer
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2000

2.  Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey.

Authors:  S Keeter; C Miller; A Kohut; R M Groves; S Presser
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2000

3.  Picking up the pace: changes in method and frame for the health information national trends survey (2011-2014).

Authors:  Lila J Finney Rutten; Terisa Davis; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Kelly Blake; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2012

4.  The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination.

Authors:  David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Bradford W Hesse; Robert T Croyle; Gordon Willis; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; K V Viswanath; Neil Weinstein; Sara Alden
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct
  4 in total
  9 in total

1.  The effect of home visits as an additional recruitment step on the composition of the final sample: a cross-sectional analysis in two study centers of the German National Cohort (NAKO).

Authors:  Lilian Krist; Ahmed Bedir; Julia Fricke; Alexander Kluttig; Rafael Mikolajczyk
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.615

2.  U.S. public opinion toward policy restrictions to limit tobacco product placement and advertising at point-of-sale and on social media.

Authors:  Kelly D Blake; Anna Gaysynsky; Rachel Grana Mayne; Andrew B Seidenberg; Annette Kaufman; Heather D'Angelo; Maria Roditis; Robert E Vollinger
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Public Support for Cigarette Pack Pictorial Health Warnings Among US Adults: A Cross-sectional Analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Annette R Kaufman; Heather D'Angelo; Anna Gaysynsky; Andrew B Seidenberg; Robert E Vollinger; Kelly D Blake
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 5.825

4.  Data Resource Profile: The National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

Authors:  Lila J Finney Rutten; Kelly D Blake; Victoria G Skolnick; Terisa Davis; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 7.196

5.  The Influence of Patient-Provider Communication on Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Tiffany B Kindratt; Folefac Atem; Florence J Dallo; Marlyn Allicock; Bijal A Balasubramanian
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2020-05-11

6.  Awareness of Alcohol and Cancer Risk and the California Proposition 65 Warning Sign Updates: A Natural Experiment.

Authors:  Alexandra Budenz; Richard P Moser; Raimee Eck; Tanya Agurs-Collins; Timothy S McNeel; William M P Klein; David Berrigan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  Relationship Between Individual Health Beliefs and Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Physical Activity Among Cancer Survivors: Results from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Meghan B Skiba; Elizabeth T Jacobs; Tracy E Crane; Lisa M Kopp; Cynthia A Thomson
Journal:  J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 1.757

8.  Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States.

Authors:  Courtney P Williams; Nicole Senft Everson; Nonniekaye Shelburne; Wynne E Norton
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-09-01

9.  Cancer surveillance and preventive services in a diverse sample of breast and colorectal cancer survivors.

Authors:  Beth A Glenn; Narissa J Nonzee; Ann S Hamilton; Lina Tieu; Annette E Maxwell; Catherine M Crespi; L Cindy Chang; Dennis Deapen; Roshan Bastani
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 4.442

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.