Comparison of response patterns in different survey designs: a longitudinal panel with mixed-mode and online-only design

Emerging Themes in Epidemiology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Rübsamen, Nicole ^a,b   Akmatov, Manas K ^a,c   Castell, Stefanie ^a,c   Karch, André ^a,b   Mikolajczyk, Rafael T ^a,d  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR INFECTION RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b PhD Programme "Epidemiology"   (Germany)

^c INSTITUTE OF INFECTION IMMUNOLOGY   (Germany)

^d HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bias; Health survey; Internet; Longitudinal study; Mixed mode; Online; Panel study; Participation; Response

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FALSE DISCOVERY RATE; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HYGIENE AND BEHAVIOUR INFECTIOUS DISEASES STUDY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESPONSE PATTERN; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 85016057429     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17427622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12982-017-0058-2     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Smith B, Smith TC, Gray GC, Ryan MAK. When epidemiology meets the Internet: web-based surveys in the Millennium Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1345-54.
2. Owen JE, Bantum EOC, Criswell K, Bazzo J, Gorlick A, Stanton AL. Representativeness of two sampling procedures for an internet intervention targeting cancer-related distress: a comparison of convenience and registry samples. J Behav Med. 2014;37:630-41.
3. Özdemir RS, St. Louis KO, Topbaş S. Public attitudes toward stuttering in Turkey: probability versus convenience sampling. J Fluency Disord. 2011;36:262-7.
4. Hultsch DF, MacDonald SWS, Hunter MA, Maitland SB, Dixon RA. Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. Int J Behav Dev. 2002;26:345-59.
5. 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;33:464-80.
6. Hohwü L, Lyshol H, Gissler M, Jonsson SH, Petzold M, Obel C. Web-based versus traditional paper questionnaires: a mixed-mode survey with a Nordic perspective. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e173.
7. Kypri K, Samaranayaka A, Connor J, Langley JD, Maclennan B. Non-response bias in a web-based health behaviour survey of New Zealand tertiary students. Prev Med (Baltim) Elsevier Inc. 2011;53:274-7.
8. McCluskey S, Topping AE. Increasing response rates to lifestyle surveys: a pragmatic evidence review. Perspect Public Health. 2011;131:89-94.
9. Plante C, Jacques L, Chevalier S, Fournier M. Comparability of internet and telephone data in a survey on the respiratory health of children. Can Respir J. 2012;19:13-8.
10. Shim J-M, Shin E, Johnson TP. Self-rated health assessed by web versus mail modes in a mixed mode survey. Med Care. 2013;51:774-81.
11. Callas PW, Solomon LJ, Hughes JR, Livingston AE. The influence of response mode on study results: offering cigarette smokers a choice of postal or online completion of a survey. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12:e46.
12. 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;31:1619-27.
13. Christensen AI, Ekholm O, Glümer C, Juel K. Effect of survey mode on response patterns: comparison of face-to-face and self-administered modes in health surveys. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24:327-32.
14. Schilling R, Hoebel J, Müters S, Lange C. Pilot study on the implementation of mixed-mode health interview surveys in the adult population (GEDA 2.0). Beiträge zur Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. 2015 (in German).
15. Sinclair M, O’Toole J, Malawaraarachchi M, Leder K. Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:132.
16. Rübsamen N, Akmatov M, Karch A, Schweitzer A, Zoch B, Mikolajczyk RT. The HaBIDS study (Hygiene and Behaviour Infectious Diseases Study) - setting up an online panel in Lower Saxony. Abstracts for the 9th Annual Meeting of the German Society for Epidemiology, Ulm; 2014 Sep 17-20: German Society of Epidemiology (DGEpi); 2014. p. Abstract P27 (in German).
17. Rübsamen N, Castell S, Horn J, Karch A, Ott JJ, Raupach-Rosin H, et al. Ebola risk perception in Germany, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:1012-8.
18. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, Glemser A, Heckel C, von der Heyde C, Quitt H, Hanefeld U, et al. Demographic standards. Stat. und Wiss. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office; 2010 (in German).
19. Thefeld W, Stolzenberg H, Bellach BM. The Federal Health Survey: response, composition of participants and non-responder analysis. Gesundheitswesen. 1999;61 Spec No:S57-61 (in German).
20. Sievers C, Akmatov MK, Kreienbrock L, Hille K, Ahrens W, Günther K, et al. Evaluation of a questionnaire to assess selected infectious diseases and their risk factors. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. 2014;57:1283-91.
21. Mossong J, Hens N, Jit M, Beutels P, Auranen K, Mikolajczyk R, et al. Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e74.
22. Mercer CH, Tanton C, Prah P, Erens B, Sonnenberg P, Clifton S, et al. Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). Lancet. 2013;382:1781-94 (Mercer et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY).
23. Valente TW, Paredes P, Poppe PR. Matching the message to the process the relative ordering of knowledge, attitudes, and practices in behavior change research. Hum Commun Res. 1998;24:366-85.
24. Cardiff Software Inc. TELEform software. California City; 2002.
25. Schmitz C. LimeSurvey. The open source survey application [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2015 Nov 9]. p. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.or. Available from: https://www.limesurvey.org.
26. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995;57:289-300.
27. Verhoeven KJF, Simonsen KL, McIntyre LM. Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos. 2005;108:643-7.
28. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 12. College Station: StataCorp LP.; 2011.
29. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 8th edn. AAPOR; 2015.
30. Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis). Individuals by age (five-year age group), highest vocational degree, und further characteristics for Lower Saxony (federal state) [Internet]. Census 9 May 2011. 2011 [cited 2015 Jan 27]. Available from: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/#dynTable:statUnit=PERSON;absRel=ANZAHL;ags=03;agsAxis=X;yAxis=ALTER_05JG,GESCHLECHT,SCHULABS,BERUFABS_AUSF;table(in German).
31. Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size - or Why the p value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:279-82.
32. Long JS, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. 3rd ed. College Station: Stata Press; 2014.
33. Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W. The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:964-74.
34. Manfreda KL, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, Vehovar V. Web surveys versus other survey modes: a meta-analysis comparing response rates. Int J Mark Res. 2008;50:79-104.
35. Eagan TML, Eide GE, Gulsvik A, Bakke PS. Nonresponse in a community cohort study: predictors and consequences for exposure-disease associations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:775-81.
36. Dunn KM, Jordan K, Lacey RJ, Shapley M, Jinks C. Patterns of consent in epidemiologic research: evidence from over 25,000 responders. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:1087-94.
37. Keiding N, Louis TA. Perils and potentials of self-selected entry to epidemiological studies and surveys. J R Stat Soc A. 2016;179:1-28.
38. Hoffmann W, Terschüren C, Holle R, Kamtsiuris P, Bergmann M, Kroke A, et al. The problem of response in epidemiological studies in Germany (part II). Gesundheitswesen. 2004;66:482-91.
39. Stang A, Jöckel KH. Studies with low response proportions may be less biased than studies with high response proportions. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:204-10.
40. Nohr EA, Frydenberg M, Henriksen TB, Olsen J. Does low participation in cohort studies induce bias? Epidemiology. 2006;17:413-8.