Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 160(6):598-604; doi:10.1093/aje/kwh263
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aitken, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Lowe, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aitken, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Lowe, J. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Comparability of Skin Screening Histories Obtained by Telephone Interviews and Mailed Questionnaires: A Randomized Crossover Study

Joanne F. Aitken1,2 , Philippa H. Youl1, Monika Janda1,3, Mark Elwood4, Ian T. Ring5 and John B. Lowe6

1 Epidemiology Unit, Centre for Research in Cancer Control, Queensland Cancer Fund, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
2 School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
3 School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
4 National Cancer Control Initiative, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
5 Health Information Centre, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
6 Department of Community and Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

The comparability of information collected through telephone interviews and information collected through mailed questionnaires has not been well studied. As part of the first phase of a randomized controlled trial of population screening for melanoma in Queensland, Australia, the authors compared histories of skin examination reported in telephone interviews and self-administered mailed questionnaires. A total of 1,270 subjects each completed a telephone interview and a mailed questionnaire 1 month apart in 1999; 564 subjects received the interview first, and 706 received the mailed questionnaire first. Agreement between the two methods was 91.2% and 88.6% for whole-body skin examination by a physician in the last 12 months and the last 3 years, respectively, and 81.9% for whole-body skin self-examination in the last 12 months. Agreement was lower for "any" skin self-examination. Agreement between the two methods was similar regardless of whether the interview or the questionnaire was administered first. Missing data were less frequent for interviews (0.5%) than for mailed questionnaires (3.8%). Costs were estimated at A$9.55 (US$6.21) per completed interview and A$3.01 (US$1.96) per questionnaire. The similarity of results obtained using telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires, coupled with the substantially higher cost of telephone interviews, suggests that self-administered mailed questionnaires are an appropriate method of assessing this health behavior.

cross-over studies; data collection; mass screening; melanoma; randomized controlled trials; skin


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Occup Med (Lond)Home page
C. Ihlebaek, S. Brage, and H. R. Eriksen
Health complaints and sickness absence in Norway, 1996-2003
Occup. Med., January 1, 2007; 57(1): 43 - 49.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.