Elise Braekman1,2, Rana Charafeddine3, Stefaan Demarest3, Sabine Drieskens3, Finaba Berete3, Lydia Gisle3, Johan Van der Heyden3, Guido Van Hal4. 1. Department Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Juliette Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050, Brussels, Belgium. elise.braekman@sciensano.be. 2. Unit of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium. elise.braekman@sciensano.be. 3. Department Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Juliette Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Unit of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Using the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) questionnaire, a web-based survey was organized alongside a face-to-face (F2F) survey including a paper-and-pencil (P&P) questionnaire for sensitive topics. Associated with these different modes, other design features varied too (e.g., recruitment, incentives, sampling). We assessed whether these whole data collection systems developed around the modes produced equivalent health estimates. METHODS: Data were obtained from two population-based surveys: the EHISWEB (web-administered, n = 1010) and the Belgian Health Interview Survey 2018 (BHIS2018) (interviewer-administered, n = 2748). Logistic regression analyses were used to assess mode system differences while adjusting for socio-demographic differences in the net samples. RESULTS: For the P&P mode of the BHIS, significant mode system differences were detected for 2 of the 9 health indicators. Among the indicators collected via the F2F mode, 9 of the 18 indicators showed significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Indicators collected via the web-based and P&P self-administered modes were generally more comparable than indicators collected via the web-based and F2F mode. Furthermore, fewer differences were detected for indicators based on simple and factual questions compared to indicators based on subjective or complex questions.
OBJECTIVES: Using the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) questionnaire, a web-based survey was organized alongside a face-to-face (F2F) survey including a paper-and-pencil (P&P) questionnaire for sensitive topics. Associated with these different modes, other design features varied too (e.g., recruitment, incentives, sampling). We assessed whether these whole data collection systems developed around the modes produced equivalent health estimates. METHODS: Data were obtained from two population-based surveys: the EHISWEB (web-administered, n = 1010) and the Belgian Health Interview Survey 2018 (BHIS2018) (interviewer-administered, n = 2748). Logistic regression analyses were used to assess mode system differences while adjusting for socio-demographic differences in the net samples. RESULTS: For the P&P mode of the BHIS, significant mode system differences were detected for 2 of the 9 health indicators. Among the indicators collected via the F2F mode, 9 of the 18 indicators showed significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Indicators collected via the web-based and P&P self-administered modes were generally more comparable than indicators collected via the web-based and F2F mode. Furthermore, fewer differences were detected for indicators based on simple and factual questions compared to indicators based on subjective or complex questions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Data collection; Data comparability; Face-to-face surveys; Health surveys; Mode systems; Web-based surveys
Authors: Bianca Cox; Herman van Oyen; Emmanuelle Cambois; Carol Jagger; Sophie le Roy; Jean-Marie Robine; Isabelle Romieu Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2009 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Elise Braekman; Rana Charafeddine; Stefaan Demarest; Sabine Drieskens; Jean Tafforeau; Johan Van der Heyden; Guido Van Hal Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Sarah Burkill; Andrew Copas; Mick P Couper; Soazig Clifton; Philip Prah; Jessica Datta; Frederick Conrad; Kaye Wellings; Anne M Johnson; Bob Erens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elise Braekman; Finaba Berete; Rana Charafeddine; Stefaan Demarest; Sabine Drieskens; Lydia Gisle; Geert Molenberghs; Jean Tafforeau; Johan Van der Heyden; Guido Van Hal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer Muschol; Martin Heinrich; Christian Heiss; Gero Knapp; Holger Repp; Henning Schneider; Ulrich Thormann; Johanna Uhlar; Kai Unzeitig; Christian Gissel Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Hanne Søberg Finbråten; Peter Nowak; Robert Griebler; Éva Bíró; Mitja Vrdelja; Rana Charafeddine; Lennert Griese; Henrik Bøggild; Doris Schaeffer; Thomas Link; Zdenek Kucera; Julien Mancini; Jürgen M Pelikan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 4.614