Data on fertility issues among female childhood cancer survivors: Differences in response characteristics

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2011, Pages

  Van Den Berg, Marleen H ^a   Overbeek, Annelies ^a   Van DerPal, Helena J ^b   Birgitta Versluys, A ^c   Bresters, Dorine ^d   Van Leeu Wen, Flora E ^e   Lambalk, Cornelis B ^a   Kaspers, Gertjan J L ^a   Van Dulmen Den Broeder, Eline ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b EMMA CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cancer survivors; Fertility; Internet; Paper; Questionnaire; Response

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; HUMAN; INTERNET; NEOPLASM; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK; STANDARD; STATISTICS; SURVIVOR; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADULT; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; INTERNET; NEOPLASMS; NETHERLANDS; ODDS RATIO; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SURVIVORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80053558365     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1707     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. International Telecommunication Union. The world in 2010. ICT facts and figures. Geneva, Switzerland: Telecommunication Development Bureau; 2010. URL: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf [accessed 2011-08-19] [WebCite Cache ID 613PgTZtL]
2. Internet World Stats. Bogata, Columbia: Miniwatts Marketing Group URL: http://www.internetworldstats.com/[accessed 2010-12-13] [WebCite Cache ID 5uwVh5p9h]
3. Pealer LN, Weiler RM, Pigg RM, Miller D, Dorman SM. The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behavior data from college students. Health Educ Behav 2001 Oct;28(5):547-559. [Medline: 11575685] (Pubitemid 33602904)
4. Vereecken CA, Maes L. Comparison of a computer-administered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors. J Adolesc Health 2006 Apr;38(4):426-432. [doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.010] [Medline: 16549304]
5. Hoonakker P, Carayo P. Questionnaire Survey Nonresponse: A Comparison of Postal Mail and Internet Surveys. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 2009;25(5):348-373. [doi: 10.1080/10447310902864951]
6. Klovning A, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. Web-based survey attracted age-biased sample with more severe illness than paper-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2009 Oct;62(10):1068-1074. [doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.015] [Medline: 19246177]
7. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res 2002;4(2):E13 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13] [Medline: 12554560]
8. Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, Sutton S. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract 2003 Oct;20(5):545-551 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 14507796] (Pubitemid 37258758)
9. Fleming CM, Bowden M. Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. J Environ Manage 2009 Jan;90(1):284-292. [doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.09.011] [Medline: 18082316]
10. Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in Web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education 2003;44(4):409-432.
11. Greenlaw C, Brown-Welty S. A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Eval Rev 2009 Oct;33(5):464-480. [doi: 10.1177/0193841X09340214] [Medline: 19605623]
12. Dillman DA, Smyth JD. Design effects in the transition to web-based surveys. Am J Prev Med 2007 May;32(5 Suppl):S90-S96. [doi: 10.1016/j.amepre. 2007.03.008] [Medline: 17466824] (Pubitemid 46634964)
13. Kiernan NA, Kiernan M, Oyler MA, Gilles C. Is a web survey as effective as a mail survey? A field experiment among computer users. American Journal of Evaluation 2005;26(2):245-252. [doi: 10.1177/1098214005275826] (Pubitemid 40782411)
14. McCabe SE. Comparison of web and mail surveys in collecting illicit drug use data: a randomized experiment. J Drug Educ 2004;34(1):61-72. [Medline: 15468748] (Pubitemid 39187060)
15. Guise V, Chambers M, Välimäki M, Makkonen P. A mixed-mode approach to data collection: combining web and paper questionnaires to examine nurses' attitudes to mental illness. J Adv Nurs 2010 Jul;66(7):1623-1632. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05357.x] [Medline: 20497273]
16. McCabe SE, Diez A, Boyd CJ, Nelson TF, Weitzman ER. Comparing web and mail responses in a mixed mode survey in college alcohol use research. Addict Behav 2006 Sep;31(9):1619-1627. [doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.12.009] [Medline: 16460882] (Pubitemid 44160742)
17. Chizawsky LL, Estabrooks CA, Sales AE. The feasibility of Web-based surveys as a data collection tool: a process evaluation. Appl Nurs Res 2011 Feb;24(1):37-44. [doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2009.03.006] [Medline: 20974058]
18. Hawkins MM, Robison LL. Importance of clinical and epidemiological research in defining the long-term clinical care of pediatric cancer survivors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2006 Feb;46(2):174-178. [doi: 10.1002/pbc.20609] [Medline: 16333860] (Pubitemid 43076067)
19. Hawkins MM, Lancashire ER, Winter DL, Frobisher C, Reulen RC, Taylor AJ, et al. The British Childhood Cancer Survivor Study: Objectives, methods, population structure, response rates and initial descriptive information. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008 May;50(5):1018-1025. [doi: 10.1002/pbc.21335] [Medline: 17849473] (Pubitemid 351500181)
20. Robison LL, Mertens AC, Boice JD, Breslow NE, Donaldson SS, Green DM, et al. Study design and cohort characteristics of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study: a multi-institutional collaborative project. Med Pediatr Oncol 2002 Apr;38(4):229-239. [Medline: 11920786] (Pubitemid 34258414)
21. Thompson AL, Marsland AL, Marshal MP, Tersak JM. Romantic relationships of emerging adult survivors of childhood cancer. Psychooncology 2009 Jul;18(7):767-774. [doi: 10.1002/pon.1471] [Medline: 19061200]
22. Cantrell MA, Lupinacci P. Investigating the determinants of health-related quality of life among childhood cancer survivors. J Adv Nurs 2008 Oct;64(1):73-83. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04760.x] [Medline: 18808594]
23. Finnegan L, Wilkie DJ, Wilbur J, Campbell RT, Zong S, Katula S. Correlates of physical activity in young adult survivors of childhood cancers. Oncol Nurs Forum 2007 Sep;34(5):E60-E69 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1188/07.ONF.E60-E69] [Medline: 17878118]
24. de Boer EJ, den Tonkelaar I, te Velde ER, Burger CW, van Leeuwen FE, , OMEGA-project group. Increased risk of early menopausal transition and natural menopause after poor response at first IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2003 Jul;18(7):1544-1552 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 12832386]
25. Quigley B, Riemer RA, Cruzen D, Rosen S. Internet versus paper survey administration: Preliminary finding on response rates. 2000 Nov 9 Presented at: 42nd Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association; November 7-9, 2000; Edinburgh, Scotland URL: http://www.imta.info/ PastConferences/Year2000.aspx [WebCite Cache]
26. Twisk J. Inleiding in de toegepaste biostatistiek [Introduction to Applied Biostatistics]. Maarssen, The Netherlands: Elsevier Gezondheidszorg; 2007.
27. Partridge AH, Gelber S, Peppercorn J, Sampson E, Knudsen K, Laufer M, et al. Web-based survey of fertility issues in young women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004 Oct 15;22(20):4174-4183. [doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.01.159] [Medline: 15483028] (Pubitemid 41185188)
28. Partridge AH, Gelber S, Peppercorn J, Ginsburg E, Sampson E, Rosenberg R, et al. Fertility and menopausal outcomes in young breast cancer survivors. Clin Breast Cancer 2008 Feb;8(1):65-69. [Medline: 18501060] (Pubitemid 351346231)
29. Shrestha A, Nohr EA, Bech BH, Ramlau-Hansen CH, Olsen J. Parental age at childbirth and age of menarche in the offspring. Hum Reprod 2010 Mar;25(3):799-804 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep473] [Medline: 20089523]
30. Shih T, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods 2008;20(3):249-271. [doi: 10.1177/1525822X08317085]
31. Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior 2010;26(2):132-139. [doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015]
32. Zebrack BJ, Casillas J, Nohr L, Adams H, Zeltzer LK. Fertility issues for young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Psychooncology 2004 Oct;13(10):689-699. [doi: 10.1002/pon.784] [Medline: 15386645] (Pubitemid 39378262)
33. Langeveld NE, Grootenhuis MA, Voûte PA, de Haan RJ, van den Bos C. Quality of life, self-esteem and worries in young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Psychooncology 2004 Dec;13(12):867-881. [doi: 10.1002/pon.800] [Medline: 15386796] (Pubitemid 40011930)
34. Schonlau M, Asch BJ, Du C. Web surveys as part of a mixed-mode strategy for populations that cannot be contacted by e-mail. Social Science Computer Review 2003;21(2):218-222. [doi: 10.1177/0894439303021002007]
35. Mavis BE, Brocato JJ. Postal surveys versus electronic mail surveys. The tortoise and the hare revisited. Eval Health Prof 1998 Sep;21(3):395-408. [Medline: 10350958] (Pubitemid 28381670)
36. Smith B, Smith TC, Gray GC, Ryan MA, , Millennium Cohort Study Team. When epidemiology meets the Internet: Web-based surveys in the Millennium Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 2007 Dec 1;166(11):1345-1354 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm212] [Medline: 17728269] (Pubitemid 350129419)
37. Walston JT, Lissitz RW, Rudner LM. The influence of web-based questionnaire presentation variations on survey cooperation and perceptions of survey quality. Journal of Official Statistics 2006;22(2):271-291.
38. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002 May 18;324(7347):1183 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 12016181]
39. Galesic M, Bosnjak M. Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 2009;73(2):349-360. [doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp031]
40. Eaton DK, Brener ND, Kann L, Denniston MM, McManus T, Kyle TM, et al. Comparison of paper-and-pencil versus Web administration of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS): risk behavior prevalence estimates. Eval Rev 2010 Apr;34(2):137-153. [doi: 10.1177/0193841X10362491] [Medline: 20234000]
41. De Leeuw E, De Heer W. Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little R, editors. Survey Nonresponse. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2002:41-54.
42. Connelly NA, Brown TL, Decker DJ. Factors affecting response rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Society & Natural Resources 2003;16(6):541-549. [doi: 10.1080/08941920309152] (Pubitemid 36922695)
43. Leisenring WM, Mertens AC, Armstrong GT, Stovall MA, Neglia JP, Lanctot JQ, et al. Pediatric cancer survivorship research: experience of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol 2009 May 10;27(14):2319-2327. [doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1813] [Medline: 19364957]