The Danish National Health Survey 2010. Study design and respondent characteristics

Scandinavian Journal of Public Health

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 391-397

  Christensen, Anne Illemann ^a   Ekholm, Ola ^a   Juel, Knud ^a   Glümer, Charlotte ^b   Andreasen, Anne Helms ^b   Hvidberg, Michael Falk ^c   Kristensen, Peter Lund ^c   Larsen, Finn Breinholt ^d   Ortiz, Britta ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b Unit for Psychotherapy Education and Research   (Denmark)

^c North Denmark Region ^*  (Denmark)

^d Centre for Public Health   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cross sectional studies; data collection; health surveillance; health surveys; study design

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DENMARK; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DENMARK; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84863836646     PISSN: 14034948     EISSN: 16511905     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1403494812451412     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aromaa A. Koponen P. Tafforeau J. Vermeire C. Evaluation of health interview surveys and health examination surveys in the European Union. Eur J Public Health 2003;13(3 Suppl):67–72.
2. Ekholm O. Hesse U. Davidsen M. Kjoller M. The study design and characteristics of the Danish national health interview surveys. Scand J Public Health 2009;37(7):758–65.
3. Fangel S. Linde P.C. Thorsted B.L. Nye problemer med repræsentativitet i surveys, som opregning med registre kan reducere. [New problems with survey representativity, which enumeration with registers is able to reduce]. Metode og Data 2007;93:14–26.
4. Ware J. Jr. Kosinski M. Keller S.D. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34(3):220–33.
5. Zierau F. Hardt F. Henriksen J.H. Holm S.S. Jorring S. Melsen T. et al. Validation of a self-administered modified CAGE test (CAGE-C) in a somatic hospital ward: comparison with biochemical markers. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2005;65(7):615–22.
6. Hupkens C.L. van den B.J. van der Z.J. National health interview surveys in Europe: an overview. Health Policy 1999;47(2):145–68.
7. van der Heyden J. Tafforeau J. van Oyen H. Demarest S. Measurement of the use of curative health services: health interview survey versus national registers. Arch Public Health 2003;61:177–90.
8. Strandhagen E. Berg C. Lissner L. Nunez L. Rosengren A. Toren K. et al. Selection bias in a population survey with registry linkage: potential effect on socioeconomic gradient in cardiovascular risk. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25(3):163–72.
9. Tjonneland A. Olsen A. Boll K. Stripp C. Christensen J. Engholm G. et al. Study design, exposure variables, and socioeconomic determinants of participation in Diet, Cancer and Health: a population-based prospective cohort study of 57,053 men and women in Denmark. Scand J Public Health 2007;35(4):432–41.
10. Eriksen L. Gronbaek M. Helge J.W. Tolstrup J.S. Curtis T. The Danish Health Examination Survey 2007–2008 (DANHES 2007–2008). Scand J Public Health 2011;39(2): 203–11.
11. Ekholm O. Gundgaard J. Rasmussen N.K. Hansen E.H. The effect of health, socio-economic position, and mode of data collection on non-response in health interview surveys. Scand J Public Health 2010;38(7):699–706.
12. Eaker S. Bergstrom R. Bergstrom A. Adami H.O. Nyren O. Response rate to mailed epidemiologic questionnaires: a population-based randomized trial of variations in design and mailing routines. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147(1):74–82.
13. de Leeuw E. Hox J. Dillmann D. International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2008.
14. Hammer-Helmich L. Buhelt L.P. Andreasen A.H. Robinson K.M. Hilding-Nørkjær H. Glümer G. Sundhedsprofil for region og kommuner 2010. [Health profile for region and municipalities 2010]. København: Forskningscenter for Forebyggelse og Sundhed, Region Hovedstaden; 2011.
15. Iversen A. Kristensen P. Christensen A. Davidsen M. Ekholm O. Hansen S. et al. Hvordan har du det? – trivsel, sundhed og sygdom blandt voksne i Region Syddanmark 2010. [How are you? – well-being, health and morbidity among adults in the Region of Southern Denmark 2010]. Vejle: Region Syddanmark; 2011.
16. Larsen F. Ankersen P. Poulsen S. Hvordan har du det? 2010. Sundhedsprofil for region og kommuner. Voksne. [How are you? Health profile for region and municipalities. Adults]. Aarhus: Center for Folkesundhed, Region Midtjylland; 2011.
17. Pedersen J. Friis K. Asferg A. Hvidberg M. Vinding A. Jensen K. Sundhedsprofil 2010. Trivsel, sundhed og sygdom i Nordjylland. [Health profile 2010. Well-being, health and morbidity in Northern Denmark]. Aalborg: Region Nordjylland; 2011.
18. Poulsen I. Hvordan har du det? 2010. Sundhedsprofil for Region Sjælland og kommuner. [How are you? 2010. Health profile for the Region of Zealand and municipalities]. Sorø: Region Sjælland; 2011.
19. Sundhedsstyrelsen. Den nationale sundhedsprofil 2010 – Hvordan har du det? [The National Health Profile 2010 – How are you?]. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2011.
20. Guise V. Chambers M. Valimaki 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;66(7):1623–32.
21. Gosling S.D. Vazire S. Srivastava S. John O.P. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 2004;59(2):93–104.
22. Ahren N.R. Using the internet to conduct research. Nurse Researcher 2005;13(2):55–70.
23. Beebe T.J. Locke G.R. III Barnes S.A. Davern M.E. Anderson K.J. Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians. Health Serv Res 2007;42(3 Pt 1):1219–34.
24. Denscombe M. Web-based questionnaires and the mode effect: an evaluation based on completion rates and data contents of near-identical questionnaires delivered in different modes. Soc Sci Comp Rev 2006;24:246–54.
25. Kaplowitz M.D. Hadlock T.D. Levine R. A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 2004;68(1):94–101.
26. Ritter P. Lorig K. Laurent D. Matthews K. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(3):e29.