Comparison of in-home collection of physical measurements and biospecimens with collection in a standardized setting: the health measures at home study.

Renee M Gindi, George Zipf, Adena M Galinsky, Ivey M Miller, Tatiana Nwankwo, Ana L Terry
{"title":"Comparison of in-home collection of physical measurements and biospecimens with collection in a standardized setting: the health measures at home study.","authors":"Renee M Gindi,&nbsp;George Zipf,&nbsp;Adena M Galinsky,&nbsp;Ivey M Miller,&nbsp;Tatiana Nwankwo,&nbsp;Ana L Terry","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Collection of physical measurements and biospecimens in the home may be an efficient way to obtain objective health measurements. This study assesses differences between collection in the home and a standardized setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants had physical measurements and biospecimens taken in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey mobile examination center (MEC). Then, they had height and weight measured in the MEC using portable equipment. In the home, participants had height, weight, and blood pressure measured and dried blood spots collected using portable equipment. Two complete examinations were done in the home: one by a health technician and one by a field interviewer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Home environments were less standardized and presented more challenges to examiners. Correlations between all four height measurements and all four weight measurements were higher than 99%. Mean differences in height (0.3 cm) and weight (0.4 kg) were small but statistically significant. The home measurements perfectly or near-perfectly classified participants as obese relative to the standardized MEC examination.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The selected physical measurements can be collected in the home by field interviewers using portable equipment. Before adding home collection of physical measurements to household interview surveys, further research should be done to examine the impact of these changes on interviewer training, participant recruitment, and participant response rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":23577,"journal":{"name":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","volume":" 164","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Collection of physical measurements and biospecimens in the home may be an efficient way to obtain objective health measurements. This study assesses differences between collection in the home and a standardized setting.

Methods: Participants had physical measurements and biospecimens taken in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey mobile examination center (MEC). Then, they had height and weight measured in the MEC using portable equipment. In the home, participants had height, weight, and blood pressure measured and dried blood spots collected using portable equipment. Two complete examinations were done in the home: one by a health technician and one by a field interviewer.

Results: Home environments were less standardized and presented more challenges to examiners. Correlations between all four height measurements and all four weight measurements were higher than 99%. Mean differences in height (0.3 cm) and weight (0.4 kg) were small but statistically significant. The home measurements perfectly or near-perfectly classified participants as obese relative to the standardized MEC examination.

Conclusions: The selected physical measurements can be collected in the home by field interviewers using portable equipment. Before adding home collection of physical measurements to household interview surveys, further research should be done to examine the impact of these changes on interviewer training, participant recruitment, and participant response rates.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在家采集物理测量和生物标本与在标准化环境中采集的比较:家庭健康措施研究。
目的:在家中收集物理测量和生物标本可能是获得客观健康测量的有效方法。本研究评估了家庭收集和标准化设置之间的差异。方法:在国家健康与营养检查调查流动检查中心(MEC)进行体格测量和生物标本采集。然后,他们在MEC中使用便携式设备测量身高和体重。在家中,研究人员测量了参与者的身高、体重和血压,并使用便携式设备收集了干燥的血斑。在家中进行了两次完整的检查:一次由卫生技术人员进行,另一次由现场采访者进行。结果:家庭环境标准化程度较低,对考官提出了更多的挑战。所有四种身高测量值和所有四种体重测量值之间的相关性均高于99%。身高(0.3 cm)和体重(0.4 kg)的平均差异很小,但具有统计学意义。与标准化MEC检查相比,家庭测量完全或近乎完美地将参与者分类为肥胖。结论:选定的物理测量值可由现场采访者使用便携式设备在家中采集。在将家庭收集的物理测量值添加到家庭访谈调查之前,应该做进一步的研究来检查这些变化对访谈者培训、参与者招募和参与者反应率的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory. Studies also include comparison of U.S. methodology with those of other countries.
期刊最新文献
Calibration Weighting Methods for the National Center for Health Statistics Research and Development Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias and Survey Location Variability in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2018: Sample Design and Estimation Procedures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1