Methods of soliciting self-reported chronic conditions in population surveys: don’t ask, don’t report?

Methods of soliciting self-reported chronic conditions in population surveys: don’t ask,... The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare the self-reported prevalence of chronic conditions when respondents are simply asked to list all chronic conditions (recall method) versus when respondents are asked explicitly about the presence of specific conditions (recognition method). Using data from two Canadian population surveys, 17 separate logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of method on the odds of reporting any chronic condition, and each of 16 specific conditions. Respondents exposed to the recognition method were nearly four times more likely to report any chronic condition than those exposed to the recall method. The effect of method varied widely across conditions, with those exposed to the recognition method 25 times more likely to report urinary incontinence, but only 1.3 times more likely to report diabetes, compared to those exposed to the recall method. In short, the estimates of chronic conditions obtained using the recall method will be different from those gathered via the recognition method, and the extent of this difference will vary by condition. Both survey designers and survey analysts must make the decision of which method is appropriate, given the goals of the survey or analysis. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Methods of soliciting self-reported chronic conditions in population surveys: don’t ask, don’t report?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/methods-of-soliciting-self-reported-chronic-conditions-in-population-9fSFkTJlK2
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Subject
Social Sciences, general; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-013-9901-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare the self-reported prevalence of chronic conditions when respondents are simply asked to list all chronic conditions (recall method) versus when respondents are asked explicitly about the presence of specific conditions (recognition method). Using data from two Canadian population surveys, 17 separate logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of method on the odds of reporting any chronic condition, and each of 16 specific conditions. Respondents exposed to the recognition method were nearly four times more likely to report any chronic condition than those exposed to the recall method. The effect of method varied widely across conditions, with those exposed to the recognition method 25 times more likely to report urinary incontinence, but only 1.3 times more likely to report diabetes, compared to those exposed to the recall method. In short, the estimates of chronic conditions obtained using the recall method will be different from those gathered via the recognition method, and the extent of this difference will vary by condition. Both survey designers and survey analysts must make the decision of which method is appropriate, given the goals of the survey or analysis.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Jul 7, 2013

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off