Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New times, new needs; e-epidemiology

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kalton G. Development in survey research in the past 25 years. Surv Methodol 2000;26:3–10

    Google Scholar 

  2. A Meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000,60:821–836

  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, 2002

  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; 2001

    Google Scholar 

  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, 2006

  6. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (2006–09–05)

  7. Union IT. ICT Statistics. Vol. 2006, 2005

  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (2007–02–15)

  9. Riva G. From telehealth to e-health: internet and distributed virtual reality in health care. Cyper Psychol Behav 2000;3:989–998

    Google Scholar 

  10. http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/index.php?cat = 4 (2006–12–06)

  11. http://www.anoto.com (2007–02–15)

  12. Manfreda KL, Vehovar V. Survey design features influencing response rates in web surveys. University of Copenhagen, Denmark: The International Conference on Improving Surveys; 2002

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000;60:821–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wyatt JC. When to use web-based surveys. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:426–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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;16:56–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jackob N, Zerback T. Improving quality by lowering non-response—a guideline for onlne surveys. Cadenabbia, Italy:Quality Criteria in Survey Research VI; 2006

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fricker RD, Schonlau M. Advantages and disadvantages of internet research surveys: evidence from the literature. Field Meth 2002;14:347–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Klingberg T, Forssberg H, Westerberg H. Training of working memory in children with ADHD. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2002;24(6):781–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. http:www.cogmed.se (2007–02–15)

  21. Ess C. Ethical decision-making and internet research: recommendations from the AOIR ethics working committee. Vol. 2006 Association of Internet Research, 2002

  22. Porter SP. Raising response rates: What works? New directions for institutional research 2004;5–21

  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):103–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;16:541–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Baruch Y. Response rate in academic studies—a comparative analysis. Hum Relat 1999;52:421–438

    Google Scholar 

  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 2006

  27. Bosnjak M, Tuten TL. Classifying Response Behaviors in Web-based Surveys. J Comput Med Commun 6 2001

  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;324:1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heerwegh D. Effect of personal salutations in e-mail invitations to participate in a web survey. Public Opin Q 2005;69:588–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Deutskens E, Ruyter dK, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P. Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Market Lett 2004;15:21–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pettit FA. A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2002;34:50–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005;27:281–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kwak N, Radler B. A comparison between mail and web surveys: response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. J Off Stat 2002;18:257–273

    Google Scholar 

  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;34:46–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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; 28:547–559

    Google Scholar 

  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;59:105–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;20:887–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;21:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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;37:289–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;30:663–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.e1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nosek BA, Banaji MR, Greenwald AG. E-research: ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the internet. J Soc Issues. 2002;58:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mathy RM, Schillace M, Coleman SM, Berquist BE. Methodological rigor with internet samples: new ways to reach underrepresented populations. Cyberpsychol Behav 2002;5:253–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Baer A, Saroiu S, Koutsky LA. Obtaining sensitive data through the Web: an example of design and methods. Epidemiology 2002;13:640–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Carlbring P, Andersson G. Internet adn psychological treatement. How well can they be combined? Comput Hum Behav 2006;22:545–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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;40:245–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;59:93–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Couper MP. Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q 2000;64:464–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kypri K, Gallagher SJ, Cashell-Smith ML. An Internet-based survey method for college student drinking research. Drug Alcohol Depend 2004;76:45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:e30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Schleyer TK, Forrest JL. Methods for the design and administration of web-based surveys. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:416–25

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;10:15–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Evans JR, Mathur A. The value of online surveys. Internet Res 2005;15:195–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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;4:171–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. www.bridges.org. Spanning the digital divide: understanding and tackling the issues. 2001 (2006–10–15)

  57. McConnaughey JW, Lader W. Falling through the net II, new data on the digital divide. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 1998

    Google Scholar 

  58. Whaley KC. America’s digital divide: 2000–2003 trends. J Med Syst 2004;28:183–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kiel JM. The digital divide: Internet and e-mail use by the elderly. Med Inform Internet Med 2005;30:19–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Berger M, Wagner TH, Baker LC. Internet use and stigmatized illness. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1821–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;11:1–22

  62. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 12A, Box 281, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden

    Alexandra Ekman & Jan-Eric Litton

Authors
  1. Alexandra Ekman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan-Eric Litton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Eric Litton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ekman, A., Litton, JE. New times, new needs; e-epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 22, 285–292 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-007-9119-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-007-9119-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation