Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Public Health
Published in: Archives of Public Health 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research

Mode differences in a mixed-mode health interview survey among adults

Authors: Jens Hoebel, Elena von der Lippe, Cornelia Lange, Thomas Ziese

Published in: Archives of Public Health | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health interview surveys are important data sources for empirical research in public health. However, the diversity of methods applied, such as in the mode of data collection, make it difficult to compare results across surveys, time, or countries. The aim of this study was to explore whether the prevalence rates of health-related indicators amongst adults differ when self-administered paper mail questionnaires (SAQ-Paper), self-administered web surveys (SAQ-Web), and computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) are used for data collection in a health survey.

Methods

Data were obtained from a population-based mixed-mode health interview survey of adults in Germany carried out within the ‘German Health Update’ (GEDA) study. Data were collected either by SAQ-Paper (n = 746), SAQ-Web (n = 414), or CATI (n = 411). Predictive margins from logistic regression models were used to estimate the prevalence rates of chronic conditions, subjective health, mental health, psychosocial factors, and health behaviours, adjusted for the socio-demographic characteristics of each mode group.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics were found to differ significantly between study participants who responded by SAQ-Paper, SAQ-Web, and CATI. Crude prevalence rates for health-related indicators also showed significant variation across all three survey modes. After adjusting for socio-demographic factors though, significant differences in prevalence rates between the two self-administered modes (SAQ-Paper and SAQ-Web) were found in only 2 out of the 19 health-related indicators studied. The differences between CATI and the two self-administered modes remained significant however, especially for indicators of mental and psychosocial health and self-reported sporting activity.

Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that prevalence rates obtained from health interview surveys can vary with the mode of data collection, primarily between interviewer and self-administered modes. Hence, the type of survey mode used should be considered when comparing results from different health surveys. Mixing self-administered modes, such as paper-based questionnaires and web surveys, may be a combination to minimize mode differences in mixed-mode health interview surveys.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Koponen P, Aromaa A: Survey Design and Methodology in National Health Interview and Health Examination Surveys. Review of Literature, European Survey Experiences and Recommendations. 2000, Helsinki: National Public Health Institute (KTL)
2.
De Leeuw ED: To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. J Off Stat. 2005, 21: 233-255.
3.
Dillman D, Smyth JD, Christian LM: Internet, mail, and misex-node surveys: the tailored design method. 2009, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4.
Krosnick JA: Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991, 5: 213-236. 10.1002/acp.2350050305.CrossRef
5.
De Leeuw ED: Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face to Face Surveys. 1992, Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties
6.
Kraus F, Steiner V: Modelling heaping effects in unemployment duration models - with an application to retrospective event data in the German socio-economic panel. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung. 1995, Discussion Paper No. 95–09
7.
Wolff A: Heaping and its Consequences for Duration Analysis. 2000, Institut für Statistik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: Sonderforschungsbereich 386, Paper 203
8.
De Leeuw E, Hox JJ: Internet surveys as part of a mixed-mode design. Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet. Edited by: Das M, Ester P, Kaczmirek L. 2011, New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
9.
De Leeuw E: International Handbook of Survey Methodology. Edited by: De Leeuw E, Hox JJ, Dillman D. 2008, New York: Taylor & Francis, Prychology Press, 113-135. Choosing the method of data collection EAM series,
10.
Krosnick JA, Alwin DF: An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin Q. 1987, 51: 201-219. 10.1086/269029.CrossRef
11.
Christian LM: How Mixed-Mode Surveys are Transforming Social Research: The Influence of Survey Mode on Measurement in web and Telephone Surveys. 2007, Washington State University
12.
13.
Revilla M: Quality in unimode and mixed-mode designs: a multitrait-multimethod approach. Surv Res Methods. 2010, 4: 151-164.
14.
Link MW, Mokdad A: Advance letters as a means of improving respondent cooperation in random digit dial studies: a multistate experiment. Public Opin Q. 2005, 69: 572-587. 10.1093/poq/nfi055.CrossRef
15.
Bäckström C, Nilsson C: Mixed mode surveying. A comparison of paper-questionnaires and web-questionnaires. Book Mixed Mode Surveying. A Comparison of Paper-Questionnaires and web-Questionnaires. 2002, City: Department of Information Technology and Media, Mid Sweden University
16.
De Bernardo DH, Curtis A: Using online and paper surveys: the effectiveness of mixed-mode methodology for populations over 50. Res Aging. 2012
17.
Smith AB, King M, Butow P, Olver I: A comparison of data quality and practicality of online versus postal questionnaires in a sample of testicular cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology. 2013, 22: 233-237. 10.1002/pon.2052.CrossRefPubMed
18.
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: 1619-1627. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.12.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Christian LM, Dillman D, Smyth JD: The effects of mode and format on answers to scalar questions in telephone and web surveys. Advances in telephone survey methodology. Edited by: Lepkowski JM, Tucker C, Brick JM, De Leeuw E, Japec L, Lavrakas PJ. 2008, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 250-275.
20.
Lugtig PJ, Lensvelt-Mulders GJLM, Frerichs R, Greven F: Estimating nonresponse bias and mode effects in a mixed-mode survey. Int J Mark Res. 2011, 53: 669-686. 10.2501/IJMR-53-5-669-686.CrossRef
21.
Ye C, Fulton J, Tourangeau R: More positive or more extreme? A meta-analysis of mode differences in response choice. Public Opin Q. 2011, 75: 349-365. 10.1093/poq/nfr009.CrossRef
22.
Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wetzel R, Krügel A, Brambosch A: Phone respondents reported less mental health problems whereas mail interviewee gave higher physical health ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61: 1056-1060. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.12.003.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A: A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007, 7: 27-10.1186/1471-2288-7-27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Kraus L, Pabst A: Studiendesign und methodik des epidemiologischen suchtsurveys 2009. [study design and methodology of the 2009 epidemiological survey of substance abuse]. Sucht. 2010, 56: 315-326. 10.1024/0939-5911/a000043.CrossRef
25.
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. 2013, The: European Journal of Public Health
26.
Bowling A: Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health. 2005, 27: 281-291. 10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.CrossRef
27.
Klausch T, Hox JJ, Schouten B: Assessing the Mode-Dependency of Sample Selectivity Across the Survey Response Process. 2013, Statistics Netherlands: The Hague
28.
Jäckle A, Roberts C, Lynn P: Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing: Mode Effects on Data Quality and Likely Causes. Report on Phase II of the ESS-Gallup Mixed Mode Methodology Projekt. 2006, Colchester: University of Essex
29.
Béland Y, St-Pierre M: Mode effects in the Canadian community health survey: a comparison of CATI and CAPI. Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology. Edited by: Lepkowski JM, Tucker C, Brick JM, De Leeuw ED, Japec L, Lavrakas PJ, Link MW, Sangster RL. 2007, Hoboken (New Jersey): John Wiley & Sons, 297-314.CrossRef
30.
Heerwegh D: Mode differences between face-to-face and web surveys: an experimental investigation of data quality and social desirability effects. Int J Public Opin Res. 2009, 21: 111-121. 10.1093/ijpor/edn054.CrossRef
31.
Robert Koch-Institut: Daten und Fakten: Ergebnisse der Studie Gesundheit in Deutschland Aktuell 2009. [Data and Facts: Results of the German Health Update” Study 2009]. Beiträge zur Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. 2011, Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut
32.
Robert Koch-Institut: Daten und Fakten: Ergebnisse der Studie Gesundheit in Deutschland Aktuell 2010. [Data and Facts: Results of the “German Health Update” Study 2010]. Beiträge zur Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. 2012, Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut
33.
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR): Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (Revised 2011). 2011, Deerfield: AAPOR
34.
World Health Organization: Obesity - Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. 2000, Geneva: World Health Organization, WHO Technical Report Series, No. 894
35.
Cox B, Van Oyen H, Cambois E, Jagger C, Le Roy S, Robine JM, Romieu I: The reliability of the minimum european health module. Int J Public Health. 2009, 54: 55-60. 10.1007/s00038-009-7104-y.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH: The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009, 114: 163-173. 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026.CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK: Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 mental health subscale and the WHO-five well-being scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003, 12: 85-91. 10.1002/mpr.145.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Meltzer H: Development of a common instrument for mental health. EUROHIS: Developing Common Instruments for Health Surveys. Edited by: Nosikov A, Gudex C. 2003, Amsterdam: IOS Press
40.
Kilpeläinen K, Arpo A, ECHIM Core Group: European Health Indicators. Development and Initial Implementation. 2008, Helsinki: National Public Health Institute
41.
Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA: The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Arch Intern Med. 1998, 158: 1789-1795. 10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Reinert DF, Allen JP: The alcohol use disorders identification test: an update of research findings. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007, 31: 185-199. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00295.x.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Mensink GBM, Lampert T, Bergmann E: Übergewicht und Adipositas in Deutschland 1984–2003 [Overweight and obesity in Germany 1984–2003]. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 2005, 48: 1348-1356. 10.1007/s00103-005-1163-x.CrossRef
44.
Brauns H, Scherer S, Steinmann S: The CASMIN educational classification in international comparative research. Advances in Cross-National Comparison. Edited by: Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, Wolf C. 2003, New York: Kluwer, 221-244.CrossRef
45.
Graubard BI, Korn EL: Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics. 1999, 55: 652-659. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00652.x.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Shim JM, Shin E, Johnson TP: Self-rated health assessed by web versus mail modes in a mixed mode survey: the digital divide effect and the genuine survey mode effect. Med Care. 2013, 51: 774-781. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829a4f92.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Fowler FJ, Roman AM, Xiao Di Z: Mode effects in a survey of medicare prostate surgery patients. Public Opin Q. 1998, 62: 29-46. 10.1086/297829.CrossRef
48.
Hanmer J, Hays RD, Fryback DG: Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2007, 45: 1171-1179. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181354828.CrossRefPubMed
49.
McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE: 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: 551-567. 10.1097/00005650-199406000-00002.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Epstein JF, Barker PR, Kroutil LA: Mode effects in self-reported mental health data. Public Opin Q. 2001, 65: 529-549. 10.1086/323577.CrossRef
51.
Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S: Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008, 11: 322-333. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Tipping S, Hope S, Pickering K, Erens B, Roth MA, Mindell JS: The effect of mode and context on survey results: analysis of data from the health survey for England 2006 and the boost survey for London. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10: 84-10.1186/1471-2288-10-84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Link MW, Mokdad AH: Effects of survey mode on self-reports of adult alcohol consumption: a comparison of mail, web and telephone approaches. J Stud Alcohol. 2005, 66: 239-245.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Aquilino WS: Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: a field experiment. Public Opin Q. 1994, 58: 210-240. 10.1086/269419.CrossRef
55.
Finger J, Tylleskar T, Lampert T, Mensink G: Physical activity patterns and socioeconomic position: the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998 (GNHIES98). BMC Public Health. 2012, 12: 1079-10.1186/1471-2458-12-1079.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Biemer PP: Total survey error: design, implementation, and evaluation. Public Opin Q. 2010, 74: 817-848. 10.1093/poq/nfq058.CrossRef
57.
Groves RM, Lyberg L: Total survey error: past, present, and future. Public Opin Q. 2010, 74: 849-879. 10.1093/poq/nfq065.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Mode differences in a mixed-mode health interview survey among adults
Authors
Jens Hoebel
Elena von der Lippe
Cornelia Lange
Thomas Ziese
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Archives of Public Health / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 2049-3258
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-3258-72-46

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Archives of Public Health 1/2014 Go to the issue

Systematic review

Mortality attributable to tobacco: review of different methods

Research

Is the different time trend (1997–2008) of the obesity prevalence among adults in the three Belgian regions associated with lifestyle changes?

Research

Self-rated literacy level does not explain educational differences in health and disease

Research

The high-cost, type 2 diabetes mellitus patient: an analysis of managed care administrative data

Research

Smoking-attributable mortality in Morocco: results of a prevalence-based study in Casablanca

Research

Determinant of factors associated with child health outcomes and service utilization in Ghana: multiple indicator cluster survey conducted in 2011