Literature DB >> 6465128

Quality of response in different population groups in mail and telephone surveys.

J Siemiatycki, S Campbell, L Richardson, D Aubert.   

Abstract

Mail and telephone survey methods, with follow-up by other methods, can provide high response rates. However, it is not clear whether different population groups provide responses of different quality, thus creating risk of biased comparisons. A closely related problem is whether proxy response adequately substitutes for self-response. This study addressed these issues in the context of parallel mail and telephone health surveys carried out in Montreal. In the telephone survey, proxy respondents provided lower estimates of morbidity and health care utilization than self-respondents; in the mail survey, there was no difference between proxy and self-response. Response validity was assessed by comparing reported physician visits with those recorded by the government-run universal health insurance plan. In general, mail responses were more valid than telephone responses. In both methods, there were suggestive but not persuasive differences in validity among sociodemographic subgroups. In both methods, those reporting illness or medication use had less underreporting of physician visits than those not reporting such things.

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6465128     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113893

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


  10 in total

1.  Smoking prevalence in a cohort of adolescents, including absentees, dropouts, and transfers.

Authors:  P L Pirie; D M Murray; R V Luepker
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Respiratory health as a predictor of questionnaire return in a sample of United States underground coalminers.

Authors:  R B Trent; R G Ames
Journal:  Br J Ind Med       Date:  1987-06

3.  Community intervention trial for smoking cessation (COMMIT): II. Changes in adult cigarette smoking prevalence.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  A 5-year follow-up study of aggression at work and psychological health.

Authors:  Annie Hogh; Marie Engström Henriksson; Hermann Burr
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2005

5.  Strategies for achieving a high response rate in a home interview survey.

Authors:  Kirsty Kiezebrink; Iain K Crombie; Linda Irvine; Vivien Swanson; Kevin Power; Wendy L Wrieden; Peter W Slane
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups: a representative population study.

Authors:  Adriana Ortega; Annie Høgh; Jan Hyld Pejtersen; Helene Feveile; Ole Olsen
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 3.015

7.  Comparison of indicators of material circumstances in the context of an epidemiological study.

Authors:  Thomas Matukala Nkosi; Marie-Elise Parent; Jack Siemiatycki; Javier Pintos; Marie-Claude Rousseau
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Analysis of factors influencing telephone call response rate in an epidemiological study.

Authors:  Jorge Matías-Guiu; Pedro Jesús Serrano-Castro; José Ángel Mauri-Llerda; Francisco José Hernández-Ramos; Juan Carlos Sánchez-Alvarez; Marisa Sanz
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-10-21

9.  Effect of survey instrument on participation in a follow-up study: a randomization study of a mailed questionnaire versus a computer-assisted telephone interview.

Authors:  Carissa M Rocheleau; Paul A Romitti; Stacey Hockett Sherlock; Wayne T Sanderson; Erin M Bell; Charlotte Druschel
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Does computer survey technology improve reports on alcohol and illicit drug use in the general population? A comparison between two surveys with different data collection modes in France.

Authors:  François Beck; Romain Guignard; Stéphane Legleye
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.