A comparison of results from an alcohol survey of a pre-recruited internet panel and the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Numbers Treasure Hunt Following each question, click on the answer. If correct, the next page will load with a graphic first – these can be used to check.
Advertisements

2 Casa 15m Perspectiva Lateral Izquierda.
1 A B C
Dallas County SAFPF Re-Entry Courts Outcome Study
In-Home Pantry Inventory Updated: November Background and Methodology Background In 1996 a National Eating Trends (NET) pantry survey found that.
AP STUDY SESSION 2.
1
Cell Phones for Data Collection: Costs and Challenges Michael Link 1, Michael Battaglia 2, Martin Frankel 3, Larry Osborn 4, and Ali Mokdad 5 1 Nielsen.
Copyright © 2003 Pearson Education, Inc. Slide 1 Computer Systems Organization & Architecture Chapters 8-12 John D. Carpinelli.
Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 6 Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley.
Properties Use, share, or modify this drill on mathematic properties. There is too much material for a single class, so you’ll have to select for your.
Multiplication X 1 1 x 1 = 1 2 x 1 = 2 3 x 1 = 3 4 x 1 = 4 5 x 1 = 5 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 9 x 1 = 9 10 x 1 = x 1 = x 1 = 12 X 2 1.
Division ÷ 1 1 ÷ 1 = 1 2 ÷ 1 = 2 3 ÷ 1 = 3 4 ÷ 1 = 4 5 ÷ 1 = 5 6 ÷ 1 = 6 7 ÷ 1 = 7 8 ÷ 1 = 8 9 ÷ 1 = 9 10 ÷ 1 = ÷ 1 = ÷ 1 = 12 ÷ 2 2 ÷ 2 =
Findings from a National Study Ashley Finley, Ph.D Director of Assessment & Research, AAC&U National Evaluator, Bringing Theory to Practice POD Conference,
1 Physicians Involved in the Care of Patients with Recently Diagnosed Cancer CanCORS Provider Composition Writing Group Academy Health Annual Research.
David Burdett May 11, 2004 Package Binding for WS CDL.
DIVERSE COMMUNITIES, COMMON CONCERNS: ASSESSING HEALTH CARE QUALITY FOR MINORITY AMERICANS FINDINGS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH FUND 2001 HEALTH CARE QUALITY.
NTDB ® Annual Report 2010 © American College of Surgeons All Rights Reserved Worldwide National Trauma Data Bank 2010 Annual Report.
We need a common denominator to add these fractions.
Create an Application Title 1Y - Youth Chapter 5.
Create an Application Title 1A - Adult Chapter 3.
CALENDAR.
11 Liang Y. Liu, Ph.D. Community Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services Section Texas Department of State Health Services
Multiplication Facts Review. 6 x 4 = 24 5 x 5 = 25.
1 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt BlendsDigraphsShort.
CHAPTER 18 The Ankle and Lower Leg
FACTORING ax2 + bx + c Think “unfoil” Work down, Show all steps.
Alcohol Awareness Month Omnibus Survey Results: Issues Associated with Alcohol Consumption March 14, 2014.
1 Click here to End Presentation Software: Installation and Updates Internet Download CD release NACIS Updates.
The 5S numbers game..
Coverage Bias in Traditional Telephone Surveys of Low-Income and Young Adults Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics.
Break Time Remaining 10:00.
Turing Machines.
Table 12.1: Cash Flows to a Cash and Carry Trading Strategy.
PP Test Review Sections 6-1 to 6-6
Bellwork Do the following problem on a ½ sheet of paper and turn in.
Regression with Panel Data
Exarte Bezoek aan de Mediacampus Bachelor in de grafische en digitale media April 2014.
BEEF & VEAL MARKET SITUATION "Single CMO" Management Committee 22 November 2012.
TCCI Barometer March “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
Sexual Behaviors that Contribute to Unintended Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Including HIV Infection.
Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved. 1 Chapter 7 Modeling Structure with Blocks.
Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge18/20/ Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge8/20/2014.
Name of presenter(s) or subtitle Canadian Netizens February 2004.
Adding Up In Chunks.
MaK_Full ahead loaded 1 Alarm Page Directory (F11)
© 2013 E 3 Alliance 2013 CENTRAL TEXAS EDUCATION PROFILE Made possible through the investment of the.
1 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt Synthetic.
TCCI Barometer September “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
DURHAM DAY-TRIP REPORT Prepared For: Durham Convention & Visitor’s Bureau Prepared By: D.K. Shifflet & Associates Ltd. April 2003.
2011 WINNISQUAM COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=1021.
Before Between After.
2011 FRANKLIN COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=332.
Minnesota Department of Health Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Program (651) Tuberculosis surveillance data for Minnesota are available on.
Subtraction: Adding UP
: 3 00.
5 minutes.
1 hi at no doifpi me be go we of at be do go hi if me no of pi we Inorder Traversal Inorder traversal. n Visit the left subtree. n Visit the node. n Visit.
Essential Cell Biology
Ethnicity Category2 Years3 Years4 Years5 Years6 Years Asian or Pacific Islander (N=84) 10%11%17%27% Black Non-Hispanic (N=28) 0%7% Hispanic (N=316) 2%10%24%34%36%
Converting a Fraction to %
Clock will move after 1 minute
PSSA Preparation.
Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd Edition
Select a time to count down from the clock above
Patient Survey Results 2013 Nicki Mott. Patient Survey 2013 Patient Survey conducted by IPOS Mori by posting questionnaires to random patients in the.
1 Dr. Scott Schaefer Least Squares Curves, Rational Representations, Splines and Continuity.
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
Presentation transcript:

A comparison of results from an alcohol survey of a pre-recruited internet panel and the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Youth Alcohol Prevention Center, Boston University School of Public Health Timothy Heeren Erika M. Edwards David L. Rosenbloom Ralph W. Hingson © 2007 Knowledge Networks, Inc. Prepared for: Knowledge Networks J. Michael Dennis Sergei Rodkin Youth Alcohol Prevention Center, Boston University School of Public Health

1 Objectives Examine the representativeness of responses to an internet- based, alcohol-related survey Compare the survey responses from those provided by the internet panelists and the NESARC respondents

2 Boston University Annual Alcohol Survey Knowledge Networks (KN) conducted 3,740 interviews with KnowledgePanel SM members 18–39 year olds At least 12 drinks in the last 12 months or any other 12 month period All KnowledgePanel SM cases were screened online 3,410 completed online 330 completed by phone (selected at random)

3 Non-Response Follow-up Target respondents who Refused to join KnowledgePanel SM Joined but later withdrew from KnowledgePanel SM Screening and interviews done by telephone 615 completed interviews

4 Boston University Annual Alcohol Survey Summary Non-Response Follow-Up Sample (NRFUS) by Telephone Panel Sample by Telephone Panel Sample by Internet Panel Acceptors Panel Rejecters RDD Sample

5 Instrument Key Topics Covered: Quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption Age of drinking onset Alcohol dependence Demographic questions Administration length (mean): 40 minutes Survey available in English or Spanish Note: Some questions were taken from NESARC survey for comparison

6 Face-to-Face Survey: Benchmark Data National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) Conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for National Institutes on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) in 2001–2002 Face-to-face interviews with 43,093 adults ages 18 and older Multi-stage probability sample, response rate – 81% 11,549 respondents age 18 to 39 who had 12 drinks in 12 month period were selected for analyses

7 Results – Demographics 1 (Ever Drinkers) NESARC In-Person n=(11,549) (weighted) KN Internet Panel (n=3,406) (unweighted) KN NRFUS by Telephone (n=603) (unweighted) Age 18 – – – 39 Gender Male Female * * 65.5* * Differences in percentages vs. NESARC corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.5 or greater

8 Results – Demographics 2 (Ever Drinkers) NESARC In-Person n=(11,549) (weighted) KN Internet Panel (n=3,406) (unweighted) KN NRFUS by Telephone (n=603) (unweighted) Education Less than high school High school Some college Bachelors or higher Race/Ethnicity White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic Other * * Differences in percentages vs. NESARC corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.5 or greater

9 Results – Alcohol-Related Characteristics No significant differences were found between NESARC and KnowledgePanel SM for the following characteristics: Ratio of Current to Former Drinkers Age of Drinking Onset Frequency of Drinking Usual Quantity Family History with Alcohol (Positive vs. Negative)

10 Results – Odds of Lifetime Diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence on Age of Drinking Onset and Other Risk Factors (Ever Drinkers) NESARC In-Person (n=11,549) KN Internet Panel supplemented with NRFUS telephone (n=4,021) Age of drinking onset < NIAAA drinking guidelines Low risk Moderate risk High risk Family history of alcoholism Yes No 4.2 (3.1, 5.7) 2.8 (2.1, 3.7) 2.5 (2.0, 3.1) 1.7 (1.3, 2.1) Ref. 5.0 (3.9, 6.3) 21.2 (16.9, 26.6) 1.8 (1.6, 2.1) Ref. 3.0 (1.8, 5.1) 3.0 (2.0, 4.5) 1.9 (1.3, 2.6) 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) Ref. 5.1 (3.1, 8.5) 21.4 (12.9, 35.7) 1.7 (1.3, 2.1) Ref. Controlling for age, sex, race, education. No significant differences between NESARC and Internet Panel.

11 Results – Alcohol-Related Characteristics Among Current Drinkers NESARC In-Person (n= 9,893 ) KN Internet Panel supplemented with NRFUS telephone (n= 3,340 ) Maximum number of drinks 1–3 4–5 6–9 10+ NIAAA drinking guidelines Low risk Moderate risk High risk * 56.2* 16.2 * Differences in percentages vs. NESARC corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.5 or greater

12 Results – Alcohol Related Characteristics Heaviest Drinking Period, Ever Drinkers NESARC In-Person (n=11,549) KN Internet Panel supplemented with NRFUS telephone (n=4,021) Maximum number of drinks 1–3 4–5 6–9 10+ NIAAA drinking guidelines Low risk Moderate risk High risk Alcohol dependence Never dependent Ever dependent * * 17.6* * 63.9* 36.1* * Differences in percentages vs. NESARC corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.5 or greater

13 Conclusions from the Boston University Principal Investigators Internet panel estimates of drinking characteristics reflect those of the national population of drinkers Internet panel under represents younger and lower educated drinkers Internet panel reported somewhat higher levels of drinking behavior for heaviest drinking period No significant associations found in multivariate tests between sample type (KN panel and KN off-panel telephone surveys) and risk factors for alcohol dependence (family history, risky drinking category, and age of onset)

Contact Information Timothy Heeren Sergei Rodkin