Reaching the cell phone only generation the behavioral risk factor surveillance system experience
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 29

Reaching the Cell Phone only Generation: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Experience PowerPoint PPT Presentation


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

Reaching the Cell Phone only Generation: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Experience. Michael Link 1 , Michael Battaglia 2 , Martin Frankel 3 , Larry Osborn 2 , and Ali H. Mokdad 4. 1 The Nielsen Company. 2 Abt Associates. 3 Baruch College, City University of New York.

Download Presentation

Reaching the Cell Phone only Generation: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Experience

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


Reaching the cell phone only generation the behavioral risk factor surveillance system experience

Reaching the Cell Phone only Generation: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Experience

Michael Link1, Michael Battaglia2, Martin Frankel3,

Larry Osborn2, and Ali H. Mokdad4

1 The Nielsen Company

2 Abt Associates

3 Baruch College, City University of New York

4 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

2008 DC-AAPOR Meeting on Cell Phone Research, Washington, DC


Phone shop apocalypse ii the plague of cell phones

Phone Shop Apocalypse II:The Plague of Cell Phones!!!


Conducting surveys via cell phones can be operationally challenging

Conducting surveys via cell phones can be operationally challenging

  • Cell phone frame very inefficient

  • Cannot use autodialers for “cold calling”

  • Charges for incoming calls/minutes used

  • Safety concerns

  • Potential mode effects / measurement errors

    • Level of cognitive engagement


Behavioral risk factor surveillance system brfss

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

  • Monthly state-based RDD survey of health issues and related risk factors

  • 50 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Virgin Islands

  • 350,000+ adult interviews conducted in 2007

  • Significant declines in participation overall, particularly among younger adults and males


2007 brfss cell phone pilot

2007 BRFSS cell phone pilot

  • Conducted in Georgia, New Mexico, & Pennsylvania

  • Target: 200 cell & landline / 200 cell-only (per state)

    • 1,200 total interviews

  • Abbreviated BRFSS core interview:

    • 66 questions

    • 15-17 minutes (on average)

  • Post-paid (contingent) Incentives:

    • $10 for completing the detailed interview

    • $1 for completing only the screener


Screening questions

Screening questions

  • Introduction

  • Confirmed telephone number

  • Is this a cellular telephone?

  • Are you 18 years of age or older?

  • Are you a resident of (state)?

  • “Do you also have a landline telephone that is used to make and receive calls?”

    • Yes – took subsample of respondents

    • No – took all respondents


Survey participation rates

Survey Participation Rates


Cell phone participation rates

Cell Phone participation rates


Comparison of respondent demographics

Comparison of respondent demographics


Landline and cell phone frames populations

Landline and Cell phoneframes & populations

Landline

Telephone

Frame

Cellular

Telephone

Frame

Landline only (A)

Landline & Cell phone (B, C)

Cell phone only (D)


Percent male

Percent male

51.1

46.0

37.9

38.2

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent 18 34 years

Percent 18-34 years

51.4

24.0

14.5

19.6

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent hispanic

Percent Hispanic

21.4

15.2

16.8

12.2

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent black

Percent black

15.0

15.8

9.3

7.5

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent high school or less education

Percent high school or less education

60.3

48.5

39.8

33.6

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent married

Percent married

69.8

62.0

49.5

32.0

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Comparison of key survey estimates

Comparison of key survey estimates


Percent any kind of health care coverage

Percent any kind of health care coverage

89.0

86.0

78.7

70.1

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent not received care due to cost barrier

Percent not received care due to cost barrier

20.4

24.9

16.3

10.2

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent currently smoke cigarettes

Percent currently smoke cigarettes

31.1

23.4

24.8

17.3

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent ever tested for hiv

Percent ever tested for HIV

54.2

43.6

37.5

36.6

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Percent binge drink past 30 days

Percent binge drink past 30 days

28.7

21.1

15.5

11.0

Landline survey

Cell phone survey

State equalized design weight applied


Comparison of survey costs

Comparison of Survey Costs


Cost per interview

Cost per Interview

  • Data collection costs only

  • Level of effort:

    • RDD = 9.1 calls/case

    • Cell = 3.3 calls / case

  • Response rate:

    • RDD = 43%

    • Cell = 26%

  • Interview length:

    • RDD = 25 minutes

    • Cell = 12 minutes

$196

$74

$64


What have we learned

What have we learned?

  • Group with both landline & cell phone differ depending on the frame from which they were sampled

    • Mode effect? Response / nonresponse effect? Frame effect?

  • Cell phone only group differs significantly from landline group on some issue domains, but not others

    • Risk behaviors seem most problematic


What have we learned1

What have we learned?

  • Cell phone & landline usage varies significantly across states

    • Makes use of national estimates for post survey adjustment problematic

  • Compared to landline surveys, cell phone surveys:

    • Have lower rates of response at the screener stage

      • Similar rates at the interview stage

    • Working residential rates lower, but not as bad as expected

    • Are considerably more expensive


Address based sampling abs as a potential alternative

Address Based Sampling (ABS)as a potential alternative

  • “Address Based Sampling” refers to the probabilistic sampling of addresses from a centralized database

    • Typically current discussions are focused on the USPS DSF

  • Offers an alternative means of sampling cell phone households

    • Does require initial contact via mail or in-person


Success in reaching cell only households using abs designs

Success in reaching cell only households using ABS designs


Contact michael link michael link@nielsen com for more information on brfss www cdc gov brfss

Contact:Michael [email protected] more information on BRFSS:www.cdc.gov/brfss


  • Login