OBJECTIVES: In the face of rising costs of surveillance systems, it is time to reexamine the feasibility of including proxy respondents in surveys designed to provide population estimates of smoking prevalence. METHODS: Data are from the California. Tobacco Surveys, which are random-digit dialed telephone surveys. One adult provided demographic information and smoking status for all household residents. Additionally, some adults were selected for in-depth interviews that also included smoking status questions. We matched information from proxy respondents and self-respondents and evaluated smoking status discrepancies between them relative to demographic and other factors (n = 2930 matched pairs) in 1992. We address the potential bias these discrepancies might introduce into the population estimate of smoking prevalence. RESULTS: Overall, the discrepancy between proxy report and self-report was 4.3%, and it increased particularly when the self-respondent reported nondaily smoking or recent quitting. Discrepancies acted in both directions, and the net bias was that the screener survey overestimated smoking prevalence by 0.1% in 1992 (0.3% in 1990). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking status questions can be added to ongoing surveys such as the census or labor force surveys; one adult could provide smoking status for all household members.
OBJECTIVES: In the face of rising costs of surveillance systems, it is time to reexamine the feasibility of including proxy respondents in surveys designed to provide population estimates of smoking prevalence. METHODS: Data are from the California. Tobacco Surveys, which are random-digit dialed telephone surveys. One adult provided demographic information and smoking status for all household residents. Additionally, some adults were selected for in-depth interviews that also included smoking status questions. We matched information from proxy respondents and self-respondents and evaluated smoking status discrepancies between them relative to demographic and other factors (n = 2930 matched pairs) in 1992. We address the potential bias these discrepancies might introduce into the population estimate of smoking prevalence. RESULTS: Overall, the discrepancy between proxy report and self-report was 4.3%, and it increased particularly when the self-respondent reported nondaily smoking or recent quitting. Discrepancies acted in both directions, and the net bias was that the screener survey overestimated smoking prevalence by 0.1% in 1992 (0.3% in 1990). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking status questions can be added to ongoing surveys such as the census or labor force surveys; one adult could provide smoking status for all household members.
Authors: M Siegel; P D Mowery; T P Pechacek; W J Strauss; M W Schooley; R K Merritt; T E Novotny; G A Giovino; M P Eriksen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Susan Regan; Zachary Z Reid; Jennifer H K Kelley; Michele Reyen; Molly Korotkin; Sandra J Japuntich; Joseph C Viana; Douglas E Levy; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Theodore R Holford; David T Levy; Lisa A McKay; Lauren Clarke; Ben Racine; Rafael Meza; Stephanie Land; Jihyoun Jeon; Eric J Feuer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kieran A Brune; Bryan Lau; Emily Palmisano; Marcia Canto; Michael G Goggins; Ralph H Hruban; Alison P Klein Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 13.506