背景:手机调查提供了一个新颖的机会,可以收集基于人群的公共卫生风险因素估计值;但是,无响应和低参与挑战了收集无偏见调查估计的目标。
目的:本研究比较了孟加拉国和坦桑尼亚非传染性疾病危险因素的计算机辅助电话访谈(CATI)和交互式语音应答(IVR)调查模式的表现。
方法:本研究使用随机交叉试验的次要数据。在2017年6月至2017年8月之间,使用随机数字拨号方法识别研究参与者。手机号码被随机分配给CATI或IVR调查。分析检查了调查完成情况,联系人,回应,拒绝,以及接受CATI和IVR调查的人的合作率。使用多层次评估不同模式之间的调查结果差异,调整混杂协变量的多变量逻辑回归模型。这些分析由移动网络提供商针对聚类效应进行了调整。
结果:对于CATI调查,在孟加拉国和坦桑尼亚联系了7044和4399电话号码,分别,以及60,863和51,685个电话号码,分别,已联系IVR调查。孟加拉国完成的采访总数为CATI949人,IVR1026人,坦桑尼亚完成的采访总数为CATI447人,IVR801人。孟加拉国的CATI反应率为5.4%(377/7044),坦桑尼亚为8.6%(376/4391);孟加拉国的IVR反应率为0.8%(498/60,377),坦桑尼亚为1.1%(586/51,483)。调查人群的分布与人口普查分布有明显差异。在这两个国家,IVR受访者更年轻,主要是男性,教育水平高于CATI受访者。IVR受访者的反应率低于孟加拉国的CATI受访者(调整后比值比[AOR]=0.73,95%CI0.54-0.99)和坦桑尼亚的CATI受访者(AOR=0.32,95%CI0.16-0.60)。IVR的合作率也低于孟加拉国的CATI(AOR=0.12,95%CI0.07-0.20)和坦桑尼亚的CATI(AOR=0.28,95%CI0.14-0.56)。孟加拉国(AOR=0.33,95%CI0.25-0.43)和坦桑尼亚(AOR=0.09,95%CI0.06-0.14),对IVR的完整采访少于对CATI的采访;然而,在这两个国家,对IVR的部分采访比对CATI的部分采访更多。
结论:完成度较低,回应,在这两个国家,与IVR的合作率都比与CATI的合作率高。这一发现表明,为了增加在某些环境中的代表性,可能需要采取选择性的方法来设计和部署手机调查,以提高人口代表性。总的来说,CATI调查可能会为调查女性等潜在代表性不足的群体提供一种有希望的方法,农村居民,以及一些国家教育水平较低的参与者。
BACKGROUND: Mobile phone surveys provide a novel opportunity to collect population-based estimates of public health risk factors; however, nonresponse and low participation challenge the goal of collecting unbiased survey estimates.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the performance of computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) and interactive voice response (IVR) survey modalities for noncommunicable disease risk factors in Bangladesh and Tanzania.
METHODS: This study used secondary data from a randomized crossover trial. Between June 2017 and August 2017, study participants were identified using the random digit dialing method. Mobile phone numbers were randomly allocated to either a CATI or IVR survey. The analysis examined survey completion, contact, response, refusal, and cooperation rates of those who received the CATI and IVR surveys. Differences in survey outcomes between modes were assessed using multilevel, multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for confounding covariates. These analyses were adjusted for clustering effects by mobile network providers.
RESULTS: For the CATI surveys, 7044 and 4399 phone numbers were contacted in Bangladesh and Tanzania, respectively, and 60,863 and 51,685 phone numbers, respectively, were contacted for the IVR survey. The total numbers of completed interviews in Bangladesh were 949 for CATI and 1026 for IVR and in Tanzania were 447 for CATI and 801 for IVR. Response rates for CATI were 5.4% (377/7044) in Bangladesh and 8.6% (376/4391) in Tanzania; response rates for IVR were 0.8% (498/60,377) in Bangladesh and 1.1% (586/51,483) in Tanzania. The distribution of the survey population was significantly different from the census distribution. In both
countries, IVR respondents were younger, were predominantly male, and had higher education levels than CATI respondents. IVR respondents had a lower response rate than CATI respondents in Bangladesh (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.99) and Tanzania (AOR=0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.60). The cooperation rate was also lower with IVR than with CATI in Bangladesh (AOR=0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.20) and Tanzania (AOR=0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.56). Both in Bangladesh (AOR=0.33, 95% CI 0.25-0.43) and Tanzania (AOR=0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.14), there were fewer completed interviews with IVR than with CATI; however, there were more partial interviews with IVR than with CATI in both
countries.
CONCLUSIONS: There were lower completion, response, and cooperation rates with IVR than with CATI in both
countries. This finding suggests that, to increase representativeness in certain settings, a selective approach may be needed to design and deploy mobile phone surveys to increase population representativeness. Overall, CATI surveys may offer a promising approach for surveying potentially under-represented groups like women, rural residents, and participants with lower levels of education in some
countries.