European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 285–292 | Cite as

New times, new needs; e-epidemiology

Review Paper

Abstract

The successful and systematic collection of demographic and lifestyle data is central in the process of any epidemiological study. The traditionally used methods such as face-to-face and telephone interviews as well as paper-questionnaires are increasingly failing to produce good qualitative results within financially feasible limits. Tools that are better suited for the present dynamic populations are needed and the Internet presents a powerful alternative for the collection of data with several intrinsic features still unexplored.

Keywords

Cohort studies Epidemiology Internet World Wide Web Questionnaire Mobile phones Digital divide E-epidemiology Response rate Digital paper Digital TV 

References

  1. 1.
    Kalton G. Development in survey research in the past 25 years. Surv Methodol 2000;26:3–10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A Meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000,60:821–836Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schonlau M, Fricker RD, Elliott MN. Literature review of web and e-mail surveys. Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web rand corporation, 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dillman DA, Bowker DK. The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologies. In: Reips U-D, Bosnjak M, editors. Dimensions of the internet science. Eichengrund: Pabst Science Publishers; 2001Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The World is Flat; The globalized world in the twenty-first century, Thomas L Friedman, Penguin Book Ltd, England, ISBN-10: 0-141-02272-8, 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (2006–09–05)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Union IT. ICT Statistics. Vol. 2006, 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (2007–02–15)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riva G. From telehealth to e-health: internet and distributed virtual reality in health care. Cyper Psychol Behav 2000;3:989–998Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/index.php?cat = 4 (2006–12–06)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    http://www.anoto.com (2007–02–15)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manfreda KL, Vehovar V. Survey design features influencing response rates in web surveys. University of Copenhagen, Denmark: The International Conference on Improving Surveys; 2002Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000;60:821–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wyatt JC. When to use web-based surveys. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:426–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res High Educ 2003;Vol.44 Springer Netherlands, 409–432. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller ET, Neal DJ, Roberts LJ, Baer JS, Cressler SO, Metrik J, Marlatt GA. Test-retest reliability of alcohol measures: is there a difference between internet-based assessment and traditional methods? Psychol Addict Behav 2002;16:56–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jackob N, Zerback T. Improving quality by lowering non-response—a guideline for onlne surveys. Cadenabbia, Italy:Quality Criteria in Survey Research VI; 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fricker RD, Schonlau M. Advantages and disadvantages of internet research surveys: evidence from the literature. Field Meth 2002;14:347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klingberg T, Forssberg H, Westerberg H. Training of working memory in children with ADHD. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2002;24(6):781–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    http:www.cogmed.se (2007–02–15)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ess C. Ethical decision-making and internet research: recommendations from the AOIR ethics working committee. Vol. 2006 Association of Internet Research, 2002Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porter SP. Raising response rates: What works? New directions for institutional research 2004;5–21Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ekman A, Dickman PW, Klint Å, Weiderpass E, Litton J-E. Feasibility of using web-based questionnaires in large population-based epidemiological studies. Eur J Epidemiol 2006;21(2):103–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Connelly NA, Brown TL, Decker DJ. Factors affecting response rates to natural resource—focused mail surveys: empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Soc Natur Resour 2003;16:541–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baruch Y. Response rate in academic studies—a comparative analysis. Hum Relat 1999;52:421–438Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ekman A, Klint Å, Dickman PW, Adami H-O, Litton J-E. Optimizing the design of web-based questionnaires—experience from a population-based study among 50,000 women. Accepted. Eur. J. Epidemiol. Nov 2006Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bosnjak M, Tuten TL. Classifying Response Behaviors in Web-based Surveys. J Comput Med Commun 6 2001Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002;324:1183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heerwegh D. Effect of personal salutations in e-mail invitations to participate in a web survey. Public Opin Q 2005;69:588–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Deutskens E, Ruyter dK, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P. Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Market Lett 2004;15:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pettit FA. A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2002;34:50–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005;27:281–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kwak N, Radler B. A comparison between mail and web surveys: response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. J Off Stat 2002;18:257–273Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Truell AD, Bartlett JE II, Alexander MW. Response rate, speed, and completeness: a comparison of Internet-based and mail surveys. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2002;34:46–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pealer LN, Weiler RM, Pigg RM, Jr., Miller D, Dorman SM. The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behavior data from college students. Health Educ Behav %R 10.1177/109019810102800503 2001; 28:547–559Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kraut R, Olson J, Banaji M, Bruckman A, Cohen J, Couper M. Psychological research online: report of Board of Scientific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet. Am Psychol 2004;59:105–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tolonen H, Dobson A, Kulathinal S. Effect on trend estimates of the difference between survey respondents and non-respondents: results from 27 populations in the WHO MONICA Project. Eur J Epidemiol 2005;20:887–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Frejer R, Hartvigsen J, Ohm Kyvik K, Jordan A, Christensen W, Hoilund-Carlsen PF. The Funen Nech and Chest Pain Study: Analysing non-reponse bias using national vital statistic data. Eur J Epidemiol 2006;21:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jousilahti P, Salomaa V, Kuulasmaa K, Niemela M, Vartiainen E. Total and cause specific mortality among participants and non-participants of population based health surveys: a comprehensive follow up of 54 372 Finnish men and women. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2005;59:310–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang YC, Lee CM, Lew-Ting CY, Hsiao CK, Chen DR, Chen WJ. Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: web-based questionnaire versus paper-and-pencil questionnaire. J Adolesc Health 2005;37:289–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Young A, Crawford S, Pope D. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and tobacco data among 3rd and 4th grade students: a randomized pilot study of Web-form versus paper-form surveys. Addict Behav 2005;30:663–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mangunkusumo RT, Moorman PW, Van Den Berg-de Ruiter AE, Van Der Lei J, De Koning HJ, Raat H. Internet-administered adolescent health questionnaires compared with a paper version in a randomized study. J Adolesc Health 2005;36:70.e1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nosek BA, Banaji MR, Greenwald AG. E-research: ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the internet. J Soc Issues. 2002;58:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mathy RM, Schillace M, Coleman SM, Berquist BE. Methodological rigor with internet samples: new ways to reach underrepresented populations. Cyberpsychol Behav 2002;5:253–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baer A, Saroiu S, Koutsky LA. Obtaining sensitive data through the Web: an example of design and methods. Epidemiology 2002;13:640–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Carlbring P, Andersson G. Internet adn psychological treatement. How well can they be combined? Comput Hum Behav 2006;22:545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fellinger J, Holzinger D, Dobner U, Gerich J, Lehner R, Lenz G, Goldberg D. An innovative and reliable way of measuring health-related quality of life and mental distress in the deaf community. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2005;40:245–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 2004;59:93–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Couper MP. Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q 2000;64:464–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kypri K, Gallagher SJ, Cashell-Smith ML. An Internet-based survey method for college student drinking research. Drug Alcohol Depend 2004;76:45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Tornetta P, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2). J Med Internet Res 2004;6:e30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schleyer TK, Forrest JL. Methods for the design and administration of web-based surveys. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:416–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res 2001;10:15–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Evans JR, Mathur A. The value of online surveys. Internet Res 2005;15:195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pealer L, Weiler RM. Guidelines for designing a Web-delivered college health risk behavior survey: lessons learned from the University of Florida Health Behavior Survey. Health Promot Pract 2003;4:171–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    www.bridges.org. Spanning the digital divide: understanding and tackling the issues. 2001 (2006–10–15)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    McConnaughey JW, Lader W. Falling through the net II, new data on the digital divide. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 1998Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Whaley KC. America’s digital divide: 2000–2003 trends. J Med Syst 2004;28:183–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kiel JM. The digital divide: Internet and e-mail use by the elderly. Med Inform Internet Med 2005;30:19–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Berger M, Wagner TH, Baker LC. Internet use and stigmatized illness. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1821–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Weimer DL. The advent of internet surveys for political research: a comparison of telephone and internet samples. Political analysis %R 10.1093/pan/11.1.1 2003;11:1–22Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations