A Tale of Two Methods:  Comparing mail and RDD data collection for the Minnesota Adult Tobacco Surve...
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

Wendy Hicks and David Cantor Westat Ann St. Claire, ClearWay Minnesota sm Rebecca Fee, PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 51 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

A Tale of Two Methods: Comparing mail and RDD data collection for the Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey III. Wendy Hicks and David Cantor Westat Ann St. Claire, ClearWay Minnesota sm Rebecca Fee, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Peter Rhode, Minnesota Department of Health.

Download Presentation

Wendy Hicks and David Cantor Westat Ann St. Claire, ClearWay Minnesota sm Rebecca Fee,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Wendy hicks and david cantor westat ann st claire clearway minnesota sm rebecca fee

A Tale of Two Methods: Comparing mail and RDD data collection for the Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey III

Wendy Hicks and David Cantor

Westat

Ann St. Claire,

ClearWay Minnesotasm

Rebecca Fee,

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota

Peter Rhode,

Minnesota Department of Health


Overview of presentation

Overview of Presentation

  • Report results of a feasibility study comparing mail and telephone data collection methods

    • Seeming declines in RDD response rates (Curtin et al, 2005)

    • Changes in coverage of the telephone population (Blumberg et al, 2006, 2007)

    • Increasing costs associated with RDD surveys

  • Findings mostly replicate those reported by Link et al. (2006)

  • Some suggestion that an “all adult” selection method in a mail survey results in biased estimates for young adults (18-24 year olds)


Methodological approach

Methodological Approach

  • Mail survey has small sample and large confidence intervals

    • Contrast results found in a parallel mail vs. telephone study for which mail study selected individuals rather than addresses

    • Bring in similar findings from another pilot study (Health Information National Trends Survey, HINTS)


Mats overview

MATS Overview

  • Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey (MATS)

    • ClearWay Minnesotasm

    • Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota

    • Minnesota Department of Health

  • Major objective of MATS: collect a diverse set of public health data about adult pop in MN, focusing on tobacco and cigarette use

  • MATS samples from two frames

    • RDD

    • Blue Cross member list frame


Overview of mats 2007 samples by mode and frame

Overview of MATS 2007 samples by mode and frame


Usps mail data collection

USPS Mail Data Collection

  • All adult respondent selection mechanism

  • Mailing package included 4 identical questionnaires and return envelopes

    “Each adult living at this address should complete one of the enclosed questionnaires. Please give one of the enclosed questionnaires and an envelope to each person 18 years old or older living at this address.”

  • Some differences from the CATI instrument to make it more suitable to paper, self-administration


Response rates by frame and mode

Response rates by frame and mode


Nonresponse and coverage error by mode

Nonresponse and coverage error by mode

  • 9.3% weighted estimate of cell-phone only households in the USPS survey

  • Generally, the demographic distributions for mail and telephone respondents parallel one another

    • Overall, more missing data in mail than telephone

  • USPS vs. RDD-only respondents (differences of 3% plus)

    • USPS has fewer HS grads, larger underestimate relative to CPS

    • USPS has fewer 65+, smaller overestimate relative to CPS

    • USPS has fewer 1-adult households and more 4+ adult households, closer distribution to CPS


Nonresponse and coverage error by mode1

Nonresponse and coverage error by mode

  • Similar story for the BC member list, generally the distributions for mail and telephone parallel

    • BC-M had fewer “high school grads” and “some college”

    • BC-M had more “married” than phone respondents


Comparing survey estimates by mode

Comparing survey estimates by mode

  • Socially sensitive items (risk behaviors)

    • Smoking prevalence,

    • Binge drinking

  • Factual items

    • Exposure to media messages regarding tobacco use

    • Workplace smoking policies

  • Items assessing beliefs

    • Harm in smoking an occasional cigarette

    • Smoking increases comfort in social situations


Estimates of risk behaviors

Estimates of risk behaviors

Hypothesis: mail > reporting of risk behaviors


Percent current smokers by age mode general pop

Percent current smokers, by age, mode: General pop

*

*

*p >0.03


Percent binge drinkers by age mode general pop

Percent binge drinkers, by age, mode: General pop.


Percent current smokers by age mode member frame

Percent current smokers, by age, mode: Member frame


Percent binge drinkers by age mode member frame

Percent binge drinkers, by age, mode: Member frame


More suggestive evidence

More suggestive evidence . . .

  • Health Information National Trend Survey (HINTS)

    • Small pilot

    • USPS frame

    • National sample

    • “all adults” selection method

  • Replicated the smoking result: Estimates for 18-24 year old mail respondents significantly lower


What about other types of items

What about other types of items?

  • Factual items

    • Reported exposure to media messages

    • Work place policy regarding smoking

      • No differences by mode, for either frame

      • No differences by mode for 18-24 years old

  • Items assessing beliefs and attitudes

    • Some support for age effect for one of the two items…


Any harm in smoking an occasional cigarette gen pop

Any harm in smoking an occasional cigarette? Gen. pop.


Any harm in smoking an occasional cigarette member list

Any harm in smoking an occasional cigarette? Member list


Summary and discussion

Summary and Discussion

  • Response rate roughly comparable

  • Mail mode includes coverage of cell-only population

  • Demographic comparison by mode-

    • USPS (all adult) to RDD (next birthday) – very similar distributions, some differences in educ, adults in HH,

    • Member list – also very similar, differences as anticipated

  • Some suggestion that 18-24 year olds not representative for USPS “all adult” method

    • Lower reports of risk behaviors in mail mode


Household type for 18 24 year olds by mode

Household type for 18-24 year olds, by mode

  • In USPS sample

    • Almost 80% live in family-type households

    • About 6% live alone

    • About 3% live in un-related households

    • Only 13% of 18-24 year olds were cell-only households

      In the RDD sample,

    • Almost 65% live in family-type households

    • About 4% live alone

    • Almost 25% live in un-related households


Next steps

Next steps

  • Incorporate methods to broaden “type” of young adult respondents

    • Advance letter

    • Incentive

    • Fed-ex the second package

  • Explore other respondent selection mechanism

    • Next birthday method

    • Other methods


  • Login