Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 267–277 | Cite as

Interviewer Variability – Quality Aspects in a Case–Control Study

  • Kerstin J. BlomgrenEmail author
  • Anders Sundström
  • Gunnar Steineck
  • Bengt-Erik Wiholm
Article

Abstract

Quality assurance and quality control are important for the reliability of case–control studies. Here we describe the procedures used in a previously published study, with emphasis on interviewer variability. To evaluate risk factors for acute pancreatitis, information including previous diagnoses and medication was collected from medical records and by telephone interviews from 462 cases and 1781 controls. Quality assurance procedures included education and training of interviewers and data validity checks. Quality control included a classification test, annual test interviews, expert case validation, and database validation. We found pronounced variations between interviewers. The maximal number of interviews per day varied from 3 to 9. The adjusted average (95% CI) number of diagnoses captured per interview of cases was 4.1 (3.8–4.3) and of controls 3.5 (3.4–3.7) (excluding one deviating interviewer). For drugs, the average (95% CI) number per interview was 3.9 (3.7–4.1) for cases and 3.3 (3.2–3.4) for controls (excluding one deviating interviewer). One of the fourteen interviewers deviated significantly from the others, and more so for controls than for cases. This interviewer’s data `were excluded. Nonetheless, data concerning controls more frequently needed correction and supplementation than for cases. Erroneous coding of diagnoses and medication was also more frequent among controls. Thus, a system for quality control of coding practices is crucial. Variability in interviewers’ ability to ascertain information is a possible source of bias in interview-based case–control studies when “blinding” cannot be achieved.

Keywords

Interviewer bias Multi-center studies Quality assurance Quality control 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ottevanger, PB, Therasse, P, Velde, C,  et al. 2003Quality assurance in clinical trialsCrit Rev Oncol Hematol47213235ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crerand WJ, Lamb J, Rulon V, Karal B, Mardekian J. Buildning data quality into clinical trials. J AHIMA 2002 Nov–Dec;73(10): 44–6, 48–53, 2 quiz 55–6Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Directive 2001/20/EC.Official Journal L 311,28/11/2001: 67–128Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. J Postgrad Med 2001; Jul–Sept; 47(3):199–203Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collins, CM 1998Ensuring data quality in the pharmaceutical industryJ AHIMA693439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharples, K, Fleming, TR, MacMahon, S, Moore, A, Reid, J, Scoggins, B 1998Monitoring clinical trialsNZ Med J111322325Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Brookwood Medical Publications Ltd, UK, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gassman, JJ, Owen, WW, Kuntz, TE, Martin, JP, Amoroso, WP 1995Data quality assurance, monitoring and reportingControl Clin Trials16 104S136SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neaton, JD, Duchene, AG, Svendsen, KH, Wentworth, D 1990An examination of the efficiency of some quality assurance methods commonly employed in clinical trialsStat Med9115124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prud’homme, GJ, Canner, PL, Cutler, JA 1989Quality assurance and monitoring in the hypertension prevention trials. Hypertension Prevention Trials Research GroupControl Clin Trials10 84S94SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Severe, JB, Schooler, NR, Lee, JH,  et al. 1989Ensuring data quality in a multicenter clinical trial: remote site data entry, central coordination and feedbackPsychopharmacol Bull25488490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tillotson, JL, Gorder, DD, DuChene, AG, Grambsch, PV, Wenz, J 1986Quality control in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Nutrition ModalityControl Clin Trials7 66S90SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bagniewska, A, Black, D, Molvig, K, Fox, C, Ireland, C, Smith, J, Hulley, S 1986Data quality in a distributed data processing system: the SHEP Pilot StudyControl Clin Trials72737CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marinez, YN, McMahan, CA, Barnwell, GM, Wigodsky, HS 1984Ensuring data quality in medical research through an integrated data management systemStat Med3101111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karrison, T 1981Data editing in a clinical trialsControl Clin Trials21529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Correa, A, Stewart, WF, Yeh, HC, Santos-Burgoa, C 1994Exposure measurement in case–control studies: reported methods and recommendationsEpidemiol Rev161832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christiansen, DH, Hosking, JD, Danneberg, AL, Williams, OD 1990Computer-assisted data collection in multicenter epidemiologic research. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities StudyControl Clin Trial11101115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whitney, CW, Lind, BK, Wahl, PW 1998Quality assurance and quality control in longitudinal studiesEpidemiol Rev207180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cook, RR 1991Overview of good epidemiological practiceJ Occup Med33216220Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lepore, P 1995The 10 essential activities of the quality assurance unitQual Assur42933PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bergman, LR 1996Measurement and data quality in longitudinal researchEur Child Adolesc Psychiatry5 S28S32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baldwin, JK, Hoover, BK 1991Quality assurance and quality control in toxicology: how might these concepts apply to epidemiology?J Occup Med3312471249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bradburn, NM, Sudman, S, Blir, E 1979Improving interview Method, Questionnaire DesignJossey-Bass publishersSan Fransisco CA2663Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartge, P, Cahill, JL, West, D,  et al. 1984Design and methods in a multi-center case–control interview studyAm J Public Health745256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wingo, PA, Ory, HW, Layde, PM, Lee, NC 1989The Evaluation of the Data Collection Process for a Multicenter, Population-based, Survey CostsJohn Wiley and Sons, IncNew York NY357406Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Groves, RM 1989Survey Errors, Survey CostsJohn Wiley and sons, IncNew York NY357406Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fowler FJ, Mangione TW. Standardized survey interviewing: minimizing interviewer-related error (Applied social Research Methods, Vol. 18). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990: 24–32, 96–105, 136–44Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hox, JJ, Leeuw, ED, Kreft, IG 1991The effect of interviewer and respondent characteristics on the quality of survey data: a multilevel modelBiermar, PBGroves, RMLyberg, LE eds. Measurement Errors in SurveysJohn and Sons, IncNew York, NY439461Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wynder Ernst, L 1994Investigator bias and interviewer bias: the problem of reporting systematic error in epidemiologyJ Clin Epidemiol47825827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Edwards, S, Slattery, M, Mori, M,  et al. 1994Objective system for interviewer performance evaluation for use in epidemiologic studiesAm J Epidemiol14010201028PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johannes, CB, Crawford, SL, McKinlay, JB 1997Interviewer effects in a cohort studyAm J Epidemiol147429438Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frey, James H., Oishi, Sabine Mertens 1995How to Conduct Interviews by Telephone and in PersonSage Publications International Educational and Professional PublisherThousand Oaks, London, New DehliGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blomgren, KB, Sundstrom, A, Steineck, G, Wiholm, BE 2002A Swedish case–control network for studies of drug induced morbidity – acute pancreatitisEur J Clin Pharmacol58275283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blomgren, KB, Sundstrom, A, Steineck, G, Wiholm, BE 2002Obesity and treatment of diabetes with glibenclamide may both be risk factors for acute pancreatitisDiabetes Care25298302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wessling, A, Bergman, U, Westerholm, B 1991On the difference in psychotropic drug use between the three major urban areas in SwedenEur J Clin Pharmacol40495500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Henricsson, K, Carlsten, A, Ranstam, J,  et al. 1999Utilisation of codein and propoxyphene:geographic and demographic variation in prescribing, prescriber and recipient categoriesEur J Clin Pharmacol55 605611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Apoteket AB. Läkemedelsstatistik 1997Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Andrews, EB, Avorn, J, Bortnichak, EA,  et al. 1996ISPE. Guidelines for good epidemiology practice for drug, device and vaccine research in the United StatesPharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety5333338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    International Society for pharmacoepidemiology. Guidelines for Good pharmacoepidemiology practices (6pp), 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin J. Blomgren
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anders Sundström
    • 3
  • Gunnar Steineck
    • 4
    • 5
  • Bengt-Erik Wiholm
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.The Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical PharmacologyKarolinska Institutet at Karolinska University HospitalHuddinge, StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Caring and Public HealthMälardalen UniversityEskilstunaSweden
  3. 3.Medical Products AgencyUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Division of Clinical Cancer EpidemiologyStockholm City CouncilStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Department of Oncology and PathologyKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations