Siemiatycki J, Campbell S, Richardson L, Aubert D
Am J Epidemiol. 1984 Aug;120(2):302-14. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113893.
Mail and telephone survey methods, with follow-up by other methods, can provide high response rates. However, it is not clear whether different population groups provide responses of different quality, thus creating risk of biased comparisons. A closely related problem is whether proxy response adequately substitutes for self-response. This study addressed these issues in the context of parallel mail and telephone health surveys carried out in Montreal. In the telephone survey, proxy respondents provided lower estimates of morbidity and health care utilization than self-respondents; in the mail survey, there was no difference between proxy and self-response. Response validity was assessed by comparing reported physician visits with those recorded by the government-run universal health insurance plan. In general, mail responses were more valid than telephone responses. In both methods, there were suggestive but not persuasive differences in validity among sociodemographic subgroups. In both methods, those reporting illness or medication use had less underreporting of physician visits than those not reporting such things.
邮件和电话调查方法，辅之以其他方法进行跟进，可以获得较高的回复率。然而，尚不清楚不同人群提供的回复质量是否不同，从而产生偏差比较的风险。一个密切相关的问题是，代理回复是否能充分替代自我回复。本研究在蒙特利尔开展的平行邮件和电话健康调查背景下探讨了这些问题。在电话调查中，代理受访者对发病率和医疗保健利用率的估计低于自我受访者；在邮件调查中，代理回复和自我回复之间没有差异。通过将报告的就诊次数与政府运营的全民健康保险计划记录的次数进行比较来评估回复的有效性。总体而言，邮件回复比电话回复更有效。在这两种方法中，社会人口亚组之间在有效性方面存在一些暗示性但不具说服力的差异。在这两种方法中，报告患病或使用药物的人比未报告此类情况的人对就诊次数的漏报更少。
