European Journal of Epidemiology

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

New times, new needs; e-epidemiology

  • Alexandra Ekman
  • Jan-Eric LittonEmail author
Review Paper


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.


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


  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. (2006–09–05)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Union IT. ICT Statistics. Vol. 2006, 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8. (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. = 4 (2006–12–06)Google Scholar
  11. 11. (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. (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. 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