PMID- 21397420
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20110830
LR  - 20151119
IS  - 0398-7620 (Print)
IS  - 0398-7620 (Linking)
VI  - 59
IP  - 2
DP  - 2011 Apr
TI  - [New outcome rates for random sampling telephone surveys].
PG  - 91-6
LID - 10.1016/j.respe.2010.11.003 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Survey non-response rates are important quality indicators. Refusal 
      rates can induce non-response bias in health survey estimates. However, 
      comparisons across surveys highlight inconsistencies in the use of survey outcome 
      categories and in the calculation of response rates. In this paper we discuss the 
      relevance of these indicators and suggest other survey quality indicators. 
      METHODS: Outcome rates from two French random-digit dialing (RDD) telephone 
      surveys are compared : the Nicolle survey on infectious diseases of 4112 
      individuals conducted in 2006, and the HIV knowledge, attitude, belief and 
      practices (KABP) survey of 5071 individuals in 2004. Based on the same protocol, 
      we describe in details the way the two RDD samples were drawn and how 
      non-response rates were estimated. RESULTS: Non-response rates were different: 
      36% in Nicolle survey and 18% in KABP survey. However, the quantity of telephone 
      numbers required to obtain one interview was higher in the KABP survey: 2.8 
      telephone numbers versus 2.1 in the Nicolle survey. The participation rates, 
      aggregating together refusals, break-off and non-reachable numbers, were 
      equivalent for the two surveys. This result occurred because of a greater 
      proportion of unreached calls in the KABP surveys, which is not integrated into 
      the non-response rates commonly used. CONCLUSION: Survey non-response rate is 
      insufficient to estimate the quality of a survey. The need for other indicators 
      has been previously stressed in the literature, notably with the adoption and 
      utilization of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 
      standard definitions of four indicators. But these indicators are quite complex 
      for evaluating non-response bias between surveys. In addition to the classical 
      refusal rate, two other indicators are proposed in this paper: participation rate 
      (number of complete interviews divided by the number of eligible and of unknown 
      eligibility units) and a liking contact rate (number of unreachable units because 
      of a long absence, break-off or non-answer divided by the number of eligible and 
      of unknown eligibility units). The sum of these three indicators is equal to 100% 
      and thus easier to manipulate when comparing surveys.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
FAU - Guilbert, P
AU  - Guilbert P
AD  - Direction des affaires scientifiques, Institut national de prevention et 
      d'education pour la sante (Inpes), Saint-Denis, France. 
      philippe.guilbert@inpes.sante.fr
FAU - Beltzer, N
AU  - Beltzer N
FAU - Gautier, A
AU  - Gautier A
FAU - Warszawski, J
AU  - Warszawski J
FAU - Riandey, B
AU  - Riandey B
LA  - fre
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - English Abstract
PT  - Journal Article
TT  - Pour de nouveaux indicateurs de qualite des enquetes telephoniques par sondage 
      aleatoire.
DEP - 20110311
PL  - France
TA  - Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique
JT  - Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique
JID - 7608039
SB  - IM
MH  - Adolescent
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Communicable Diseases/*epidemiology/transmission
MH  - Data Interpretation, Statistical
MH  - France/epidemiology
MH  - HIV Infections/epidemiology
MH  - Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
MH  - *Health Surveys/standards
MH  - Humans
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Patient Participation/*statistics & numerical data
MH  - Random Allocation
MH  - Refusal to Participate/statistics & numerical data
MH  - Sampling Studies
MH  - Selection Bias
MH  - Surveys and Questionnaires
MH  - *Telephone
EDAT- 2011/03/15 06:00
MHDA- 2011/08/31 06:00
CRDT- 2011/03/15 06:00
PHST- 2010/05/18 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2010/10/14 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2010/11/08 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2011/03/15 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2011/03/15 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2011/08/31 06:00 [medline]
AID - S0398-7620(11)00024-1 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.respe.2010.11.003 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2011 Apr;59(2):91-6. doi: 
      10.1016/j.respe.2010.11.003. Epub 2011 Mar 11.