4.6 Article

Feasibility of Including Cellular Telephone Numbers in Random Digit Dialing for Epidemiologic Case-Control Studies

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 173, Issue 1, Pages 118-126

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq322

Keywords

bias (epidemiology); case-control studies; epidemiologic methods; selection bias; telephone

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [5R01CA129621-02, R01CA105041, R01CA085914]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA105041, R01CA085914, R01CA129621] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The usefulness of landline random digit dialing (RDD) in epidemiologic studies is threatened by the rapid increase in households with only cellular telephone service. This study assessed the feasibility of including cellular telephone numbers in RDD and differences between young adults with landline telephones and those with only cellular telephones. Between 2008 and 2009, a total of 9,023 cellular telephone numbers were called and 43.8% were successfully screened; 248 men and 249 women who resided in 3 Washington State counties, were 20-44 years of age, and used only cellular telephones were interviewed. They were compared with 332 men and 526 women with landline telephones interviewed as controls for 2 case-control studies conducted in parallel with cellular telephone interviewing. Cellular-only users were more likely to be college educated and less likely to have fathered/birthed a child than were their landline counterparts. Male cellular-only users were less likely to be obese and more likely to exercise, to be Hispanic, and to have lower incomes, while female cellular-only users were more likely to be single than landline respondents. Including cellular telephone numbers in RDD is feasible and should be incorporated into epidemiologic studies that rely on this method to ascertain subjects, although low screening rates could hamper the representativeness of such a sample.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available