Jason Hsia1, Guixiang Zhao2, Machell Town2, Junling Ren3, Catherine A Okoro4, Carol Pierannunzi2, William Garvin2. 1. Division of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: zxx1@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is composed of telephone surveys that collect state data from non-institutionalized U.S. adults regarding health-related risk behaviors and chronic health conditions. A new design was implemented in 2011 to include participants on cellular telephones. It is important to validate estimates since 2011. METHODS: A total of 10 key and widely used variables between BRFSS and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) or National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in 2011-2016 were compared. Data analysis was conducted in 2018. RESULTS: Between BRFSS and NHANES, similar linear time trends of prevalences or means were found for 8 of 9 studied variables. There were no significant differences in the prevalences of the following variables: self-reported fair/poor health, ever told have diabetes, and ever told to have hypertension. In trend comparison of BRFSS versus NHIS, interactions of prevalence between survey and time period were not found for 5 variables: current smoking, self-reported fair/poor health, ever told have diabetes, and self-reported height and weight. Although there were significant differences in many estimates between BRFSS and either NHANES or NHIS, the absolute differences across years were rather small. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing BRFSS time trends with those of 2 national benchmark surveys in 10 key and widely used variables suggests that the trends of prevalences (or means) from BRFSS, NHANES, and NHIS are mostly similar. For many variables, despite statistically significant differences in the prevalences (or means) between surveys, absolute differences in most cases were small and not meaningful from a public health surveillance perspective. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is composed of telephone surveys that collect state data from non-institutionalized U.S. adults regarding health-related risk behaviors and chronic health conditions. A new design was implemented in 2011 to include participants on cellular telephones. It is important to validate estimates since 2011. METHODS: A total of 10 key and widely used variables between BRFSS and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) or National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in 2011-2016 were compared. Data analysis was conducted in 2018. RESULTS: Between BRFSS and NHANES, similar linear time trends of prevalences or means were found for 8 of 9 studied variables. There were no significant differences in the prevalences of the following variables: self-reported fair/poor health, ever told have diabetes, and ever told to have hypertension. In trend comparison of BRFSS versus NHIS, interactions of prevalence between survey and time period were not found for 5 variables: current smoking, self-reported fair/poor health, ever told have diabetes, and self-reported height and weight. Although there were significant differences in many estimates between BRFSS and either NHANES or NHIS, the absolute differences across years were rather small. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing BRFSS time trends with those of 2 national benchmark surveys in 10 key and widely used variables suggests that the trends of prevalences (or means) from BRFSS, NHANES, and NHIS are mostly similar. For many variables, despite statistically significant differences in the prevalences (or means) between surveys, absolute differences in most cases were small and not meaningful from a public health surveillance perspective. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Kurt J Greenlund; Hua Lu; Yan Wang; Kevin A Matthews; Jennifer M LeClercq; Benjamin Lee; Susan A Carlson Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.354
Authors: Brent A Williams; Stephen Voyce; Stephen Sidney; Véronique L Roger; Timothy B Plante; Sharon Larson; Michael J LaMonte; Darwin R Labarthe; Bailey M DeBarmore; Alexander R Chang; Alanna M Chamberlain; Catherine P Benziger Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Guixiang Zhao; Jason Hsia; Alexander Vigo-Valentín; William S Garvin; Machell Town Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Karim S Ladha; Nikhil Mistry; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Hance Clarke; Subodh Verma; Gregory M T Hare; C David Mazer Journal: CMAJ Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Karim S Ladha; Nikhil Mistry; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Hance Clarke; Subodh Verma; Gregory M T Hare; C David Mazer Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Karen C Schliep; William A Barbeau; Kristine E Lynch; Michelle K Sorweid; Michael W Varner; Norman L Foster; Fares Qeadan Journal: Biol Sex Differ Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 5.027
Authors: Gregory Lines; Kira Mengistu; Megan Rose Carr LaPorte; Deborah Lee; Lynn Anderson; Daniel Novinson; Erica Dwyer; Sonja Grigg; Hugo Torres; Gaurab Basu; Danny McCormick Journal: Health Equity Date: 2021-07-21