Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Environ Health. 2012 Mar 11;11(1):14. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-11-14.
Surveys are a common way to measure annoyance due to road traffic noise, but the method has some draw-backs. Survey context, question wording and answer alternatives could affect participation and answers and could have implications when comparing studies and/or performing pooled analyses. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in annoyance reporting due to road traffic noise in two types of surveys of which one was introduced broadly and the other with the clearly stated aim of investigating noise and health.
Data was collected from two surveys carried out in the municipality of Malmö, southern Sweden in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2612 and n = 3810). The first survey stated an aim of investigating residential environmental exposure, especially noise and health. The second survey was a broad public health survey stating a broader aim. The two surveys had comparable questions regarding noise annoyance, although one used a 5-point scale and the other a 4-point scale. We used geographic information systems (GIS) to assess the average road and railway noise (LAeq,24h) at the participants' residential address. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for annoyance in relation to noise exposure.
Annoyance at least once a week due to road traffic noise was significantly more prevalent in the survey investigating environment and health compared to the public health survey at levels > 45 dB(A), but not at lower exposure levels. However no differences in annoyance were found when comparing the extreme alternatives "never" and "every day". In the study investigating environment and health, "Noise sensitive" persons were more likely to readily respond to the survey and were more annoyed by road traffic noise compared to the other participants in that survey.
The differences in annoyance reporting between the two surveys were mainly due to different scales, suggesting that extreme alternatives are to prefer before dichotomization when comparing results between the two. Although some findings suggested that noise-sensitive individuals were more likely to respond to the survey investigating noise and health, we could not find convincing evidence that contextual differences affected either answers or participation.
调查是测量道路交通噪声引起的烦恼的常用方法，但该方法存在一些缺陷。调查背景、问题措辞和答案选择会影响参与度和答案，并且在比较研究和/或进行汇总分析时可能会产生影响。本研究旨在调查两种类型的调查中，由于道路交通噪声引起的烦恼报告的差异，其中一种是广泛介绍的，另一种则明确旨在调查噪声与健康的关系。
数据来自于 2007 年和 2008 年在瑞典马尔默市进行的两项调查（n=2612 和 n=3810）。第一项调查旨在调查居住环境暴露情况，特别是噪声和健康。第二项调查是一项广泛的公共卫生调查，目的更为广泛。这两项调查在噪声烦恼方面有类似的问题，尽管一项使用了 5 点量表，另一项使用了 4 点量表。我们使用地理信息系统（GIS）评估参与者居住地址的平均道路和铁路噪声（LAeq，24h）。使用逻辑回归计算与噪声暴露相关的烦恼的比值比。
在调查环境和健康的调查中，由于道路交通噪声而每周至少烦恼一次的情况明显比公共卫生调查更为普遍，噪声水平>45dB（A）时，情况更为明显，但在较低的暴露水平下则并非如此。然而，在比较“从不”和“每天”这两个极端选项时，没有发现烦恼程度存在差异。在调查环境和健康的研究中，与其他参与者相比，“对噪声敏感”的人更有可能对调查做出反应，并且更容易受到道路交通噪声的干扰。
两项调查中烦恼报告的差异主要是由于量表不同所致，因此在比较两项调查结果时，最好在二分法之前使用极端选项。尽管一些研究结果表明，对噪声敏感的个体更有可能对调查噪声与健康的调查做出反应，但我们无法找到令人信服的证据表明上下文差异会影响答案或参与度。
