Literature DB >> 3728446

A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview.

B I O'Toole, D Battistutta, A Long, K Crouch.   

Abstract

Three survey modes--a self-administered mailed questionnaire, a telephone interview, and a home interview--were assessed for survey costs, adequacy of completion, test-retest reliability, validity of responses to medical questions and estimates of morbidity. Costs per household for each mode were $A42.75, $A74.33, and $71.89, respectively. Item omission was confined virtually to the mail mode and averaged 5.5% over 84 questions assessed, while telephone and home interview modes averaged 0.4% and 0.2%, respectively. "Don't knows" were virtually absent for all questions except those about precise details (names, places, etc.) of events occurring often 10-15 years before the survey; no mode differences were observed. The mail mode produced less reliable responses to questions about environmental exposure to hazardous chemicals or activities when considered question-by-question, but differences were not significant among modes when all questions were grouped. Reliability was high to medical questions and no mode differences were observed. Medical conditions which would require a medical diagnosis for subjects to be able to report them were more reliably answered than conditions described in broad or lay terms. Validity of answers to medical questions varied across modes and types of questions; underreporting of medical conditions was highest in the mail mode and was lowest for conditions requiring a diagnosis. Overreporting was lowest in the mail mode and highest for conditions requiring a diagnostic opinion.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3728446     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  31 in total

1.  Screening seniors for risk of functional decline: results of a survey in family practice.

Authors:  D M Dalby; J W Sellors; F D Fraser; C Fraser; C H van Ineveld; L Pickard; M Howard
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr

2.  National health surveys by mail or home interview: effects on response.

Authors:  H S Picavet
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  The effect of different methods of collecting data: mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement.

Authors:  Graeme Hawthorne
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Factors influencing the effectiveness of mailed health surveys.

Authors:  G H Gilbert; J Longmate; L G Branch
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1992 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

5.  The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument.

Authors:  M C Reilly; A S Zbrozek; E M Dukes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Measuring use of health services for at-risk drinkers: how brief can you get?

Authors:  Brenda M Booth; Joann E Kirchner; Stacy M Fortney; Xiaotong Han; Carol R Thrush; Michael T French
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.505

7.  Investigating the proxy effect and the saliency principle in household based postal questionnaires.

Authors:  A Tennant; E M Badley; M Sullivan
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Issues in conducting epidemiologic research among elders: lessons from the MOBILIZE Boston Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Samelson; Jennifer L Kelsey; Douglas P Kiel; Anthony M Roman; L Adrienne Cupples; Marcie B Freeman; Richard N Jones; Marian T Hannan; Suzanne G Leveille; Margaret M Gagnon; Lewis A Lipsitz
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-25       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Influenza vaccination coverage rates in Austria in 2006/07 - a representative cross-sectional telephone survey.

Authors:  Patricia R Blank; Andreas U Freiburghaus; Matthias M Schwenkglenks; Thomas D Szucs; Ursula Kunze
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2008

10.  Survey response rates: national and regional differences in a European multicentre study of vertebral osteoporosis.

Authors:  T W O'Neill; D Marsden; C Matthis; H Raspe; A J Silman
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.