英国通过电话与面对面收集的吸烟、替代尼古丁和饮酒流行率估计值的比较:吸烟和酗酒工具包调查

Vera Helen Buss, Loren Kock, Harry Oisin Tattan-Birch, Sarah E Jackson, Lion Shahab, Jamie Brown
{"title":"英国通过电话与面对面收集的吸烟、替代尼古丁和饮酒流行率估计值的比较:吸烟和酗酒工具包调查","authors":"Vera Helen Buss, Loren Kock, Harry Oisin Tattan-Birch, Sarah E Jackson, Lion Shahab, Jamie Brown","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.30.24311204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the survey mode of the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Study, a long-running repeat cross-sectional survey, had to change from face-to-face to telephone interviews. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences in sociodemographic, smoking, alternative nicotine and alcohol use estimates between the two survey modes, to understand the potential impacts of this change in methodology on prevalence estimates and trends over time. Design: After COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, we conducted parallel telephone and face-to-face household surveys in March 2022 and in January to March 2024, using a hybrid of random and quota sampling. Data from both years were aggregated. Setting and Participants: People aged 16+ years living in private households in Great Britain. Measurements: Sociodemographic characteristics, nicotine and alcohol use related estimates and their 95% CIs - unweighted and weighted - collected via telephone versus face-to-face in a household. Findings: In the unweighted analyses, the telephone sample included slightly younger and less socioeconomically advantaged groups than the face-to-face sample. After the samples were weighted, estimates of sociodemographic characteristics and nicotine and alcohol use were generally consistent across methodologies, including daily cigarette smoking (face-to-face: 11.1% [10.1-12.1] vs. telephone: 10.6% [9.5-11.7]), non-daily cigarette smoking (face-to-face: 2.7% [2.2-3.3] vs. telephone: 3.4% [2.8-4.1]), and e-cigarette use among people who smoke (face-to-face: 27.0% [23.5-30.5] vs. telephone: 29.3% [25.4-33.3]). However, compared with telephone participants, a lower proportion of face-to-face participants reported currently using e-cigarettes (face-to-face: 6.4% [5.6-7.1] vs. telephone: 10.4% [9.3-11.5]), and a higher proportion reported never drinking alcohol (face-to-face: 31.1% [29.7-32.5] vs. telephone: 25.0% [23.5-26.5]) and never having 6 or more standard drinks on one occasion (face-to-face: 46.6% [44.7-48.5] vs. telephone: 40.2% [38.4-42.1]). More participants provided \"don't know\" or \"refused\" responses in the telephone compared with the face-to-face interview, including in response to questions about tobacco use, e-cigarette device type, and the number of standard drinks on a typical day. Conclusions: Face-to-face and telephone surveys generally yield similar estimates of nicotine and alcohol use. However, there may be some underreporting of vaping and drinking in a face-to-face survey conducted in the home compared with telephone.","PeriodicalId":501282,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Addiction Medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of prevalence estimates of smoking, alternative nicotine and alcohol use in Great Britain collected via telephone versus face-to-face: Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit surveys\",\"authors\":\"Vera Helen Buss, Loren Kock, Harry Oisin Tattan-Birch, Sarah E Jackson, Lion Shahab, Jamie Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.07.30.24311204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and Aims: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the survey mode of the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Study, a long-running repeat cross-sectional survey, had to change from face-to-face to telephone interviews. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences in sociodemographic, smoking, alternative nicotine and alcohol use estimates between the two survey modes, to understand the potential impacts of this change in methodology on prevalence estimates and trends over time. Design: After COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, we conducted parallel telephone and face-to-face household surveys in March 2022 and in January to March 2024, using a hybrid of random and quota sampling. Data from both years were aggregated. Setting and Participants: People aged 16+ years living in private households in Great Britain. Measurements: Sociodemographic characteristics, nicotine and alcohol use related estimates and their 95% CIs - unweighted and weighted - collected via telephone versus face-to-face in a household. Findings: In the unweighted analyses, the telephone sample included slightly younger and less socioeconomically advantaged groups than the face-to-face sample. After the samples were weighted, estimates of sociodemographic characteristics and nicotine and alcohol use were generally consistent across methodologies, including daily cigarette smoking (face-to-face: 11.1% [10.1-12.1] vs. telephone: 10.6% [9.5-11.7]), non-daily cigarette smoking (face-to-face: 2.7% [2.2-3.3] vs. telephone: 3.4% [2.8-4.1]), and e-cigarette use among people who smoke (face-to-face: 27.0% [23.5-30.5] vs. telephone: 29.3% [25.4-33.3]). However, compared with telephone participants, a lower proportion of face-to-face participants reported currently using e-cigarettes (face-to-face: 6.4% [5.6-7.1] vs. telephone: 10.4% [9.3-11.5]), and a higher proportion reported never drinking alcohol (face-to-face: 31.1% [29.7-32.5] vs. telephone: 25.0% [23.5-26.5]) and never having 6 or more standard drinks on one occasion (face-to-face: 46.6% [44.7-48.5] vs. telephone: 40.2% [38.4-42.1]). More participants provided \\\"don't know\\\" or \\\"refused\\\" responses in the telephone compared with the face-to-face interview, including in response to questions about tobacco use, e-cigarette device type, and the number of standard drinks on a typical day. Conclusions: Face-to-face and telephone surveys generally yield similar estimates of nicotine and alcohol use. However, there may be some underreporting of vaping and drinking in a face-to-face survey conducted in the home compared with telephone.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Addiction Medicine\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Addiction Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.30.24311204\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Addiction Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.30.24311204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:由于COVID-19大流行,吸烟与饮酒工具包研究这一长期重复性横断面调查的调查方式不得不从面对面调查改为电话访问。本研究旨在评估两种调查模式在社会人口学、吸烟、尼古丁替代品和酒精使用估计值方面的异同,以了解方法的改变对流行估计值和长期趋势的潜在影响。设计:COVID-19 限制解除后,我们在 2022 年 3 月和 2024 年 1 月至 3 月采用随机抽样和配额抽样的混合方法同时进行了电话和面对面住户调查。我们对这两年的数据进行了汇总。调查地点和参与者:居住在英国私人家庭中的 16 岁以上人群。测量:社会人口学特征、尼古丁和酒精使用相关估计值及其 95% CIs(非加权和加权)--通过电话收集,而不是在家庭中面对面收集。研究结果:在未加权分析中,电话样本中的年轻群体和社会经济地位较低的群体略多于面对面样本。在对样本进行加权分析后,各种方法对社会人口特征以及尼古丁和酒精使用情况的估计值基本一致,包括每天吸烟(面对面:11.1% [10.1-12.1] vs. 电话:10.6% [9.1] vs. 其他方法:11.1% [10.1-12.1] vs. 其他方法:11.1% [10.1-12.1] vs. 其他方法:10.6% [9.1电话:10.6% [9.5-11.7])、非每日吸烟(面对面:2.7% [2.2-3.3] vs. 电话:3.4% [2.8-4.1])和吸烟者使用电子烟(面对面:27.0% [23.5-30.5] vs. 电话:29.3% [25.4-33.3])。然而,与电话参与者相比,较低比例的面对面参与者表示目前正在使用电子烟(面对面:6.4% [5.6-7.1] vs. 电话:10.4% [9.3-11.5]),有更高比例的参与者表示从未饮酒(面对面:31.1% [29.7-32.5] vs. 电话:25.0% [23.5-26.5]),也从未一次性喝过 6 杯或更多标准饮料(面对面:46.6% [44.7-48.5] vs. 电话:40.2% [38.4-42.1])。与面对面访谈相比,更多参与者在电话访谈中回答 "不知道 "或 "拒绝",包括回答有关烟草使用、电子烟设备类型和通常一天中标准饮料的数量等问题。结论:面对面调查和电话调查对尼古丁和酒精使用情况的估计值基本相似。然而,与电话调查相比,在家中进行的面对面调查可能会少报一些吸食电子烟和饮酒的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparison of prevalence estimates of smoking, alternative nicotine and alcohol use in Great Britain collected via telephone versus face-to-face: Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit surveys
Background and Aims: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the survey mode of the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Study, a long-running repeat cross-sectional survey, had to change from face-to-face to telephone interviews. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences in sociodemographic, smoking, alternative nicotine and alcohol use estimates between the two survey modes, to understand the potential impacts of this change in methodology on prevalence estimates and trends over time. Design: After COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, we conducted parallel telephone and face-to-face household surveys in March 2022 and in January to March 2024, using a hybrid of random and quota sampling. Data from both years were aggregated. Setting and Participants: People aged 16+ years living in private households in Great Britain. Measurements: Sociodemographic characteristics, nicotine and alcohol use related estimates and their 95% CIs - unweighted and weighted - collected via telephone versus face-to-face in a household. Findings: In the unweighted analyses, the telephone sample included slightly younger and less socioeconomically advantaged groups than the face-to-face sample. After the samples were weighted, estimates of sociodemographic characteristics and nicotine and alcohol use were generally consistent across methodologies, including daily cigarette smoking (face-to-face: 11.1% [10.1-12.1] vs. telephone: 10.6% [9.5-11.7]), non-daily cigarette smoking (face-to-face: 2.7% [2.2-3.3] vs. telephone: 3.4% [2.8-4.1]), and e-cigarette use among people who smoke (face-to-face: 27.0% [23.5-30.5] vs. telephone: 29.3% [25.4-33.3]). However, compared with telephone participants, a lower proportion of face-to-face participants reported currently using e-cigarettes (face-to-face: 6.4% [5.6-7.1] vs. telephone: 10.4% [9.3-11.5]), and a higher proportion reported never drinking alcohol (face-to-face: 31.1% [29.7-32.5] vs. telephone: 25.0% [23.5-26.5]) and never having 6 or more standard drinks on one occasion (face-to-face: 46.6% [44.7-48.5] vs. telephone: 40.2% [38.4-42.1]). More participants provided "don't know" or "refused" responses in the telephone compared with the face-to-face interview, including in response to questions about tobacco use, e-cigarette device type, and the number of standard drinks on a typical day. Conclusions: Face-to-face and telephone surveys generally yield similar estimates of nicotine and alcohol use. However, there may be some underreporting of vaping and drinking in a face-to-face survey conducted in the home compared with telephone.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
National trends in drug overdose mortality in Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations, 2018-2022 Transcranial magnetic stimulation of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex for cocaine use disorder: A pilot study Diagnostic Validity of Drinking Behaviour for Identifying Alcohol Use Disorder: Findings from a Nationally Representative Sample of Community Adults and an Inpatient Clinical Sample Barriers and Facilitators to Community Pharmacist-Provided Injectable Naltrexone for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals During Community Reentry in Wisconsin Overdoses with Xylazine and Fentanyl Recorded in Pennsylvania’s Overdose Information Network
×
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:481959085
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