Comparability of skin screening histories obtained by telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires: A randomized crossover study

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 160, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 598-604

  Aitken, Joanne F ^a,b,g   Youl, Philippa H ^a   Janda, Monika ^a,c   Elwood, Mark ^d   Ring, Ian T ^e   Lowe, John B ^f  

^a Centre for Immunology and Cancer Research   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^d National Cancer Control Initiative   (Australia)

^e Health Information Centre   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^g CANCER COUNCIL QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cross over studies; Data collection; Mass screening; Melanoma; Randomized controlled trials; Skin

Indexed keywords

CANCER;

ADULT; AGED; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MELANOMA; MONEY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SKIN EXAMINATION; TELEPHONE;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CORRESPONDENCE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL HISTORY TAKING; MELANOMA; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; QUEENSLAND; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF-EXAMINATION; SKIN NEOPLASMS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TELEPHONE;

EID: 4544242415     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh263     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Donovan RJ, Roman CD, Corti B, et al. Face-to-face household interviews versus telephone interviews for health surveys. Aust N Z J Public Health 1997;21:134-40.
2. Rhodes T, Girman, CJ, Jacobsen SJ, et al. Does the mode of questionnaire administration affect the reporting of urinary symptoms? Urology 1995;46:341-5.
3. Norman SA, Localio AR, Zhou L, et al. Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158: 264-71.
4. Chapman RS, Madden WC, Perlin SA. Influences of asthma and household environment on lung function in children and adolescents: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:175-89.
5. O'Toole BI, Battistutta D, Long A, et al. A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview. Am J Epidemiol 1986;124:317-28.
6. Brogger J, Bakke P, Eide GE, et al. Comparison of telephone and postal survey modes on respiratory symptoms and risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:572-6.
7. Lyberg L, Kasprzyk D. Data collection methods and measurement error: an overview. In: Biemer PP, Groves RM, Lyberg LE, et al, eds. Measurement errors in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1991:237-57.
8. Dillman DA, Tarnai J. Mode effects of cognitively designed recall questions: a comparison of answers to telephone and mail surveys. In: Biemer PP, Groves RM, Lyberg LE, et al, eds. Measurement errors in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1991:74-93.
9. Abrahamson JH. Survey methods in community medicine. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Churchill Livingstone, 1974.
10. Bradburn NM, Sudman S. The current status of questionnaire design. In: Biemer PP, Groves RM, Lyberg LE, et al, eds. Measurement errors in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1991:29-40.
11. Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, et al. A comparison trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 2001;39:181-9.
12. Walker AH, Restuccia JD. Obtaining information on patient satisfaction with hospital care: mail versus telephone. Health Serv Res 1994;19:291-306.
13. Brambilla DJ, McKinlay SM. A comparison of responses to mailed questionnaires and telephone interviews in a mixed mode health survey. Am J Epidemiol 1987;126:962-71.
14. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Med Care 1994;32:551-67.
15. Aitken JF, Elwood JM, Lowe JB, et al. A randomised trial of population screening for melanoma. J Med Screen 2002;9: 33-7.
16. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
17. Maclure M, Willett WC. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol 1987;126:161-9.
18. Janda M, Elwood M, Ring IT, et al. Prevalence of skin screening by general practitioners in regional Queensland. Med J Aust 2004;180:10-15.
19. Ooijen M, Ivens U, Johansen C, et al. Comparison of a self-administered questionnaire and a telephone interview of 146 Danish waste collectors. Am J Ind Med 1997;31:653-8.
20. Aitken JF, Janda M, Lowe JB, et al. Prevalence of whole-body skin self-examination in a population at high risk for skin cancer (Australia). Cancer Causes Control 2004;15:453-63.
21. Perkins JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:969-73.
22. Galobardes B, Sunyer J, Anto JM, et al. Effect of method of administration, mail or telephone, on the validity and reliability of the respiratory health questionnaire. The Spanish Centres of the European Asthma Study. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:875-81.
23. Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Stringfellow VL, et al. Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Med Care 2002;40:190-200.
24. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129-36.