Literature DB >> 9161067

Face-to-face household interviews versus telephone interviews for health surveys.

R J Donovan1, C D Holman, B Corti, G Jalleh.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare response distributions in health surveys for two interview modes: face-to-face household interviews and telephone interviews. There were two samples of the Perth metropolitan general population aged 16 to 69 years: a face-to-face household sample (n = 1000) and a telephone sample (n = 222). The samples were generated by probability-based methods commonly used by commercial market research organisations. The surveys occurred in August-September 1992 as part of a larger statewide survey component of a three-year evaluation of the Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation. Respondents were drawn from a two-stage cluster sample based on private dwellings for personal interviews, and from randomly selected listed and unlisted private numbers for telephone interviews. Although the samples did not differ significantly on a number of variables, the telephone sample was significantly higher in residential social status; there was significantly lower reporting of smoking and lower unsafe alcohol consumption in the telephone sample: significantly higher proportions of the telephone sample were in Prochaska's 'action' stage of change for several health behaviours; and there was significantly greater recall of health messages in the telephone sample. Health researchers should treat comparisons between different survey modes with caution, and should be aware that campaign evaluations using telephone surveys and household surveys may yield substantially different results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9161067     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.1997.tb01672.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health        ISSN: 1326-0200            Impact factor:   2.939


  9 in total

1.  Injury prevention attitudes and awareness in New Zealand.

Authors:  R Hooper; C A Coggan; B Adams
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.399

2.  Assessing health status, behavioral risks, and health disparities in American Indians living on the northern plains of the U.S.

Authors:  Jeffrey E Holm; Nancy Vogeltanz-Holm; Dmitri Poltavski; Leander McDonald
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

3.  Health-related quality of life in adult population before and after the onset of financial crisis: the case of Athens, Greece.

Authors:  Chrysoula Beletsioti; Dimitris Niakas
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Testing Skype as an interview method in epidemiologic research: response and feasibility.

Authors:  Tobias Weinmann; Silke Thomas; Susanne Brilmayer; Sabine Heinrich; Katja Radon
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 3.380

5.  Sampling procedures and sample representativeness in a national telephone survey: a Portuguese example.

Authors:  Sofia Correia; Paulo Dinis; Francisco Rolo; Nuno Lunet
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 3.380

6.  Socioeconomic status and cigarette expenditure among US households: results from 2010 to 2015 Consumer Expenditure Survey.

Authors:  Mohammad Siahpush; Paraskevi A Farazi; Shannon I Maloney; Danae Dinkel; Minh N Nguyen; Gopal K Singh
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Ethnic differences in reported smoking behaviors in face-to-face and telephone interviews.

Authors:  Orna Baron-Epel; Amalia Haviv-Messika; Manfred S Green; Dorit Nitzan Kalutzki
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  Estimation of nationwide vaccination coverage and comparison of interview and telephone survey methodology for estimating vaccination status.

Authors:  Boyoung Park; Yeon-Kyeng Lee; Lisa Y Cho; Un Yeong Go; Jae Jeong Yang; Seung Hyun Ma; Bo-Youl Choi; Moo-Sik Lee; Jin-Seok Lee; Eun Hwa Choi; Hoan Jong Lee; Sue K Park
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 2.153

9.  Non-response to a life course socioeconomic position indicator in surveillance: comparison of telephone and face-to-face modes.

Authors:  Catherine R Chittleborough; Anne W Taylor; Fran E Baum; Janet E Hiller
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 4.615

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.