Literature DB >> 3173261

Interviews or postal questionnaires? Comparisons of data about women's experiences with maternity services.

A Cartwright1.   

Abstract

Surveys by personal interview are often assumed to be superior to those conducted by mail questionnaire. An experimental study of experiences and attitudes of 800 newly delivered mothers revealed surprising advantages to postal surveys: they are cheaper, more easily repeatable, and minimize interviewer effects. While response rates differed, the quality of responses was similar, except between middle- and working-class mothers. Postal surveys can be used with considerable assurance in national studies of fairly intimate experiences of pregnancy and delivery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Behavior; Comparative Studies; Data Collection; Delivery Of Health Care; Developed Countries; Economic Factors; England; Europe; Evaluation; Family And Household; Family Characteristics; Family Relationships; Health; Health Services; Health Services Evaluation; Interviews; Low Income Population; Maternal Health Services; Maternal-child Health Services; Middle Income Population; Mothers; Northern Europe; Organization And Administration; Parents; Postpartum Women; Primary Health Care; Program Acceptability; Program Evaluation; Programs; Psychological Factors; Puerperium; Reproduction; Research Methodology; Research Report; Sampling Studies; Satisfaction; Social Class; Socioeconomic Factors; Socioeconomic Status; Studies; Surveys; United Kingdom

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3173261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Milbank Q        ISSN: 0887-378X            Impact factor:   4.911


  12 in total

1.  What can you ask about? The effect on response to a postal screen of asking about two potentially sensitive questions.

Authors:  J Windsor
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 2.  Assessing quality of life in patients with epilepsy.

Authors:  A Jacoby
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  A randomised controlled trial of postal versus interviewer administration of a questionnaire measuring satisfaction with, and use of, services received in the year before death.

Authors:  J Addington-Hall; L Walker; C Jones; S Karlsen; M McCarthy
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Randomised comparison of three methods of administering a screening questionnaire to elderly people: findings from the MRC trial of the assessment and management of older people in the community.

Authors:  L Smeeth; A E Fletcher; S Stirling; M Nunes; E Breeze; E Ng; C J Bulpitt; D Jones
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-12-15

5.  Monitoring systems to evaluate the quality of perinatal care.

Authors:  J Lumley
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1995

6.  Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations.

Authors:  B Sibbald; J Addington-Hall; D Brenneman; P Freeling
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Cancer assessment methodology in a native Hawaiian community.

Authors:  Andrea Siu; Donna-Marie Palakiko
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2008

8.  Agent Orange exposure and prevalence of self-reported diseases in Korean Vietnam veterans.

Authors:  Sang-Wook Yi; Heechoul Ohrr; Jae-Seok Hong; Jee-Jeon Yi
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2013-09-30

9.  Using a birth cohort to study ageing: representativeness and response rates in the National Survey of Health and Development.

Authors:  M Stafford; S Black; I Shah; R Hardy; M Pierce; M Richards; A Wong; D Kuh
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2013-06

10.  Does it matter whether the recipient of patient questionnaires in general practice is the general practitioner or an independent researcher? The REPLY randomised trial.

Authors:  James A Desborough; Peter Butters; Debi Bhattacharya; Richard C Holland; David J Wright
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.