European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 103–111 | Cite as

Feasibility of Using Web-based Questionnaires in Large Population-based Epidemiological Studies

  • Alexandra Ekman
  • Paul W. Dickman
  • Åsa Klint
  • Elisabete Weiderpass
  • Jan-Eric Litton
Methods

Abstract

To date, few large web-based epidemiological studies have been performed in a population-based setting. Sweden has optimal prerequisites for web-based studies with more than 80% of the general population having access to the Internet. Our aim was to investigate (I) response rates in an epidemiological study using primarily the web as a tool for data collection and (II) whether socio-demographic patterns vary between responders to a web and a paper questionnaire. In 2003, we invited 47,859 women to complete a web questionnaire. Two reminders were sent to non-responders; in the first a random sample received a paper questionnaire and in the second the majority received a paper questionnaire. All other non-responders received web questionnaires. Differences in response rates between responders to web and paper questionnaires with regard to socio-demographic and other variables were analyzed, and estimates of the bias introduced by these differences were estimated. In total, 41% of the women responded to the web questionnaire and 31% to the paper questionnaire (overall response rate 72%). The web-, paper- and non-responders respectively did not differ significantly in age, physical activity levels, and body mass index. Women answering web or paper questionnaires had a higher level of education and income and a lower level of smoking than non-responders. The bias associated with collecting information using web questionnaires was not greater than that caused by paper questionnaires. We conclude that web-based questionnaires are a feasible tool for data collection in large population based epidemiological studies in Sweden.

Key words

Cohort studies Epidemiology Internet Questionnaire 

Abbreviations

BMI

Body Mass Index

CI

Confidence Interval

HRT

Hormone Replacement Therapy

OC

Oral Contraceptive

PDF

Portable Document Format

RR

Relative Risk

URL

Uniform Resource Locator

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Statistics Sweden. Use of computers and the Internet by private persons in 2004. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden; 2004. Report No.: 91-618-1260-9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Statistics Sweden. Use of computers and the Internet by private persons in 2002. Örebro: Statistics Sweden; 2002 January 28.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The National Board of Health and Welfare. The Cancer Registry. 2005 [cited; Available from: http://www.sos.se/epc/cancer/introcan.htm.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Statistics Sweden. Longitudinal database for education, income and occupation. 2005 2003-05-23 [cited 2005; Available from: http://www.scb.se/templates/Standard_22868.asp.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leece, P, Bhandari, M, Sprague, S,  et al. 2004Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison (2)J Med Internet Res.6e30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braithwaite, D, Emery, J, Lusignan, S, Sutton, S. 2003Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: A valid alternative?Fam. Pract.20545551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McMahon, SR, Iwamoto, M, Massoudi, MS,  et al. 2003Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatriciansPediatrics111e299e303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crawford S, McCabe S, Couper MP, Boyd C. From Mail to Web: Improving Response Rates and Data Collection Efficiencies. In: International Conference on Improving Surveys. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baer, A, Saroiu, S, Koutsky, LA. 2002Obtaining sensitive data through the Web: An example of design and methodsEpidemiology13640645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Houston, TK, Cooper, LA, Vu, HT, Kahn, J, Toser, J, Ford, DE. 2001Screening the public for depression through the InternetPsychiatr Serv52362367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker, L, Wagner, TH, Singer, S, Bundorf, MK. 2003Use of the Internet and E-mail for Health Care Information: Results From a National SurveyJAMA28924002406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosling, SD, Vazire, S, Srivastava, S, John, OP. 2004Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnairesAm Psychol5993104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Truell, AD, Bartlett, JE,II, Alexander, MW. 2002Response rate, speed, and completeness: A comparison of Internet-based and mail surveysBehav Res Methods Instrum Comput344649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schleyer, TK, Forrest, JL. 2000Methods for the design and administration of web-based surveysJ Am Med Inform Assoc7416425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wyatt, JC. 2000When to use web-based surveysJ Am Med Inform Assoc7426429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Data Inspection Board. Personal Data Act (1998:204). In; 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wacholder, S. 1986Binomial regression in GLIM: estimating risk ratios and risk differencesAm J Epidemiol123174184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pettit, FA. 2002A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnairesBehav Res Methods Instrum Comput345054PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kypri, K, Gallagher, SJ, Cashell-Smith, ML. 2004An Internet-based survey method for college student drinking researchDrug and Alcohol Dependence764553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller, ET, Neal, DJ, Roberts, LJ,  et al. 2002Test–retest reliability of alcohol measures: Is there a difference between internet-based assessment and traditional methods?Psychol Addict Behav165663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Neil, KM, Penrod, SD. 2001Methodological variables in web-based research that may affect results: Sample type, monetary incentives, and personal informationBehav Res Methods Instrum Comput33226233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dillman D, Tortora RL, Conradt J, Bowker D. Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates for web surveys. In: Joint Statistical Meetings. Alexandria, Egypt, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Couper, MP, Traugott, MW, Lamias, MJ. 2001Web survey design and administrationPublic Opin Q65230253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Internet World Stats, Usage and Population Statistics. 2005 [cited 2005 13th of June]; Available from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nua Internet Surveys. How Many Online? 2005 [cited 2005 13th of June]; Available from: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Solomon DJ. Conducting web-based surveys. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2001; 7(19).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buchanan, T, Tarick, A, Heffernan, TM,  et al. 2005Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaireBehav Res Methods37148154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ross, MW, Mansson, SA, Daneback, K, Cooper, A, Tikkanen, R. 2005Biases in Internet sexual health samples: Comparison of an internet sexuality survey and a national sexual health survey in SwedenSoc Sci Med61245252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra Ekman
    • 1
  • Paul W. Dickman
    • 1
  • Åsa Klint
    • 1
  • Elisabete Weiderpass
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan-Eric Litton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.The Cancer Registry of NorwayOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations