Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/15353421
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
6
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2004-9-8
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
The comparability of information collected through telephone interviews and information collected through mailed questionnaires has not been well studied. As part of the first phase of a randomized controlled trial of population screening for melanoma in Queensland, Australia, the authors compared histories of skin examination reported in telephone interviews and self-administered mailed questionnaires. A total of 1,270 subjects each completed a telephone interview and a mailed questionnaire 1 month apart in 1999; 564 subjects received the interview first, and 706 received the mailed questionnaire first. Agreement between the two methods was 91.2% and 88.6% for whole-body skin examination by a physician in the last 12 months and the last 3 years, respectively, and 81.9% for whole-body skin self-examination in the last 12 months. Agreement was lower for "any" skin self-examination. Agreement between the two methods was similar regardless of whether the interview or the questionnaire was administered first. Missing data were less frequent for interviews (0.5%) than for mailed questionnaires (3.8%). Costs were estimated at A$9.55 (US$6.21) per completed interview and A$3.01 (US$1.96) per questionnaire. The similarity of results obtained using telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires, coupled with the substantially higher cost of telephone interviews, suggests that self-administered mailed questionnaires are an appropriate method of assessing this health behavior.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Sep
|
| pubmed:issn |
0002-9262
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:day |
15
|
| pubmed:volume |
160
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
598-604
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2007-11-15
|
| pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Adult,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Analysis of Variance,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Correspondence as Topic,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Cost-Benefit Analysis,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Cross-Over Studies,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Cross-Sectional Studies,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Data Collection,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Female,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Interviews as Topic,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Logistic Models,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Mass Screening,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Medical History Taking,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Melanoma,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Middle Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Physical Examination,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Queensland,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Questionnaires,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Self-Examination,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Skin Neoplasms,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Socioeconomic Factors,
pubmed-meshheading:15353421-Telephone
|
| pubmed:year |
2004
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Comparability of skin screening histories obtained by telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires: a randomized crossover study.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Epidemiology Unit, Centre for Research in Cancer Control, Queensland Cancer Fund, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. joannea@cfepi.org.au
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Clinical Trial,
Comparative Study,
Randomized Controlled Trial,
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't,
Validation Studies
|