Collecting saliva samples by mail

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 147, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 141-146

  Etter, Jean François ^a   Perneger, Thomas V ^a   Ronchi, Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cotinine; Data collection; Incentives; Postal service; Randomized controlled trials; Saliva; Smoking; Specimen handling

Indexed keywords

COTININE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; SALIVA; SALIVA LEVEL; SAMPLING; SMOKING; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 0032518979     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009426     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abrams DB, Follick MJ, Biener L, et al. Saliva cotinine as a measure of smoking status in field settings. Am J Public Health 1987;77:846-8.
2. Etzel RA. A review of the use of saliva cotinine as a marker of tobacco smoke exposure. Prev Med 1990;19:190-7.
3. Kemmeren JM, van Poppel G, Verhoef P, et al. Plasma cotinine: stability in smokers and validation of self-reported smoke exposure in nonsmokers. Environ Res 1994;66:235-43.
4. Greeley DA, Valois RF, Bernstein DA. Stability of salivary cotinine sent through the US mail for verification of smoking status. Addict Behav 1992;17:291-6.
5. Foulds J, Bryant A, Stapleton J, et al. The stability of cotinine in unfrozen saliva mailed to the laboratory. (Letter). Am J Public Health 1994;84:1182-3.
6. Murray DM, McBride C, Lindquist R, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of saliva thiocyanate and cotinine for cigarette smoking: a comparison of two collection methods. Addict Behav 1991;16:161-6.
7. Schneider SJ, Singer H. Validating reports of nonsmoking with breath and saliva samples: your checkup is in the mail. Addict Behav 1983;8:187-91.
8. Sexton M, Nowicki P, Hebel JR. Verification of smoking status by thiocyanate in unrefrigerated, mailed saliva samples. Prev Med 1986;15:28-34.
9. Hayney MS, Dimanlig P, Lipsky JJ, et al. Utility of a "swish and spit" technique for the collection of buccal cells for TAP haplotype determination. Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70:951-4.
10. Dabbs JM. Salivary testosterone measurements: collecting, storing, and mailing saliva samples. Physiol Behav 1991;49:815-17.
11. Stark K, Wamecke C, Brinkmann V, et al. Sensitivity of HIV antibody detection in saliva. Med Microbiol Immunol 1993;182:147-51.
12. Van den Akker R, van den Hoek JAR, van den Akker WMR, et al. Detection of HIV antibodies in saliva as a tool for epidemiological studies. AIDS 1992;6:953-7.
13. Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS, et al. Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies. Psychol Bull 1992;111:23-41.
14. Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Q 1993;57:62-79.
15. Houston MJ, Jefferson RW. The negative effects of personalization on response patterns in mail surveys. J Marketing Res 1975;12:114-17.
16. Pucel DJ, Nelson HF, Wheeler DN. Questionnaire follow-up returns as a function of incentives and responder characteristics. Vocational Guidance Q 1971;19:188-93.
17. May RC. What approach gets the best return in mail surveys? Industrial Marketing 1960;45:50-1.
18. Marrett LD, Kreiger N, Dodds L, et al. The effect on response rates of offering a small incentive with a mailed questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 1992;2:745-53.
19. Mortagy AK, Howell JBL, Waters WE. A useless raffle. J Epidemiol Community Health 1985;39:183-4.
20. Woodward A, Douglas B, Miles H. Chance for a free dinner increases response to mail questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 1985;14:641-2.
21. Blythe BJ. Increasing mailed survey responses with a lottery. Soc Work Res Abstr 1986;22:18-19.
22. Spry VM, Melbourne IH, Sallis JG, et al. Recruiting survey respondents to mailed surveys: controlled trials of incentives and prompts. Am J Epidemiol 1989;30:166-72.
23. Perneger TV, Leplège A, Etter JF, et al. Validation of a French-language version of the MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1051-60.
24. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
25. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol 1992;47:1102-14.
26. Velicer WF, Di Clemente CC, Prochaska JO, et al. Decisional balance measure for assessing and predicting smoking status. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985;48:1279-89.
27. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, et al. The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerström tolerance questionnaire. Br J Addict 1991;86:1119-27.
28. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 1982;37:122-47.
29. Perneger TV, Etter JF, Rougemont A. Randomized trial of use of a monetary incentive and a reminder card to increase the response rate to a mailed health survey. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:714-22.
30. Clayton D, Hills M. Statistical models in epidemiology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993.
31. Groves RM, Cialdini RB, Couper MP. Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Q 1992;56:475-95.
32. Jones EE, Sigal H. The bogus pipeline: a new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychol Bull 1971;76:349-64.
33. Kombo KA, Kelder SH, Perry CL, et al. Effects of a saliva pipeline procedure on adolescent self-reported smoking behavior and youth smoking prevention outcomes. Prev Med 1993;22:857-65.
34. Jooste PL, Yach D, Steenkamp HJ, et al. Drop-out and newcomer bias in a community cardiovascular follow-up study. Int J Epidemiol 1990;19:284-9.
35. Rodes A, Sans S, Balana LL, et al. Recruitment methods and differences in early, late and non-respondents in the first MONICA-Catalonia population survey. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1990;38:447-53.
36. Fox RJ, Crask MR, Jonghoon K. Mail survey response rate, a meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Q 1988;52:467-91.
37. Yammarino FJ, Skinner SJ, Childers TL. Understanding mailed survey response behavior, a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Q 1991;55:613-39.