We compared national and state-based estimates for the prevalence of mammography screening from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and a model-based approach that combines information from the two surveys.
Methods.
At the state and national levels, we compared the three estimates of prevalence for two time periods (1997–1999 and 2000–2003) and the estimated difference between the periods. We included state-level covariates in the model-based approach through principal components.
Results.
The national mammography screening prevalence estimate based on the BRFSS was substantially larger than the NHIS estimate for both time periods. This difference may have been due to nonresponse and noncoverage biases, response mode (telephone vs. in-person) differences, or other factors. However, the estimated change between the two periods was similar for the two surveys. Consistent with the model assumptions, the model-based estimates were more similar to the NHIS estimates than to the BRFSS prevalence estimates. The state-level covariates (through the principal components) were shown to be related to the mammography prevalence with the expected positive relationship for socioeconomic status and urbanicity. In addition, several principal components were significantly related to the difference between NHIS and BRFSS telephone prevalence estimates.
Conclusions.
Model-based estimates, based on information from the two surveys, are useful tools in representing combined information about mammography prevalence estimates from the two surveys. The model-based approach adjusts for the possible nonresponse and noncoverage biases of the telephone survey while using the large BRFSS state sample size to increase precision.
References
1.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 3rd ed.Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
2.
BerryDACroninKAPlevritisSKFrybackDGClarkeLZelenM. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med2005;353:1784–92.
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US). National Health Interview Survey [cited 2009 Sep 25]. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm
4.
CDC (US). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [cited 2009 Sep 25]. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss
5.
Department of Health and Human Services (US). Healthy People 2010: Understanding and improving health. 2nd ed.Washington: DHHS, Office of the Surgeon General (US); 2000.
6.
LeglerJBreenNMeissnerHMalecDCoyneC. Predicting patterns of mammography use: A geographic perspective on national needs for intervention research. Health Serv Res2002;37:929–47.
7.
WellsBLHormJW. Targeting the underserved for breast and cervical cancer screening: The utility of ecological analysis using the National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health1988;88:1484–9.
8.
AndersenMRYasuiYMeischkeHKuniyukiAEtzioniRUrbanN. The effectiveness of mammography promotion by volunteers in rural communities. Am J Prev Med2000;18:199–207.
9.
BreenNCroninKAMeissnerHITaplinSHTangkaFKTiroJA. Reported drop in mammography: Is this cause for concern?Cancer2007;109:2405–9.
10.
Design and estimation for the National Health Interview Survey 1995–2004. Vital Health Stat22003(130).
11.
ElliottMRDavisWW. Obtaining cancer risk factor prevalence estimates in small areas: Combining data from two surveys. J Royal Stat Soc Ser C2005;54:595–609.
12.
RaghunathanTEDaweiXSchenkerNParsonsVLDavisWWDoddKW. Combining information from two surveys to estimate county-level prevalence rates of cancer risk factors and screening. J Am Stat Assoc2007;102:474–86.
13.
KishL. Statistical design for research. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 2004.
14.
AndersonJENelsonDEWilsonRW. Telephone coverage and measurement of health risk indicators from the National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health1988;88:1392–5.
15.
FrankelMRSrinathKPBattagliaMPHoaglinDCSmithPJWrightRA. Using data on interruptions in telephone service to reduce nontelephone bias in a random-digit-dialing survey. Proc Surv Res Methods Sec Am Stat Assoc2000:647–52.
16.
FrankelMRSrinathKPHoaglinDCBattagliaMPSmithPJWrightRA. Adjustments for non-telephone bias in random-digit-dialing surveys. Stat Med2003;22:1611–26.
17.
de LeeuwEde HeerW. Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In: GrovesRMDill-ManDAEltingeJLLittleRJA, editors. Survey nonresponse. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. p. 41–54.
18.
CurtinRPresserSSingerE. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opin Q2005;69:87–98.
19.
KeeterSMillerCKohutAGrovesRMPresserS. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin Q2000;64:125–48.
20.
GrovesRM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q2006;70:646–75.
21.
NelsonDEPowell-GrinerETownMKovarMG. A comparison of national estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Am J Public Health2003;93:1335–41.
22.
National Center for Health Statistics (US). National Health Interview Survey: Questionnaires, datasets, and related documentation [cited 2009 Sep 25], Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/nhis_questionnaires.htm
23.
SchenkerNGentlemanJF. On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. Am Stat2001;55:182–6.
24.
HiattRAKlabundeCBreenNSwanJBallard-BarbashR. Cancer screening practices from National Health Interview Surveys: Past, present, and future. J Natl Cancer Inst2002;94:1837–46.
25.
CoughlinSSThompsonTDHallHILoganPUhlerRJ. Breast and cervical carcinoma screening practices among women in rural and nonrural areas of the United States, 1998–1999. Cancer2002;94:2801–12.
26.
DaileyABKaslSVHolfordTRCalcocoressiLJonesBA. Neighborhood-level socioeconomic predictors of nonadherence to mammography screening guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2007;16:2293–303.
27.
CoughlinSSLeadbetterSRichardsTSabatinoSA. Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women, 2002. Soc Sci Med2008;66:260–75.
28.
GoyderJWarrinerKMillerS. Evaluating socio-economic status (SES) bias in survey nonresponse. J Official Stat2002;18:1–11.
29.
GrovesRMCouperMP. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
30.
BreimanLSpectorP. Submodel selection and evaluation in regression—the X-random case. Int Stat Rev1992;60:291–319.
GilksWRRichardsonSSpielgelhalterD. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1995.
33.
LindleyDVSmithAFM. Bayesian estimates for the linear model. J Royal Stat Series B1972;34:1–41.
34.
FayREIIIHerriotRA. Estimation of income from small places: An application of James-Stein procedures to Census data. J Am Stat Assoc1979;74:269–77.
35.
WeisbergHF. The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.
36.
BlumbergSJLukeJVCynamonMLFrankelMR. Recent trends in household telephone coverage in the United States. In: LepkowskiJMTuckerCBrickJMde LeeuwEDJapecLLavrakasPJ, editors. Advances in telephone survey methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. p. 56–86.
37.
TuckerCBrickJMMeekinsB. Household telephone service and usage patterns in the United States in 2004: Implications for telephone samples. Public Opin Q2007;71:3–22.
38.
BlumbergSJLukeJVCynamonML. Telephone coverage and health survey estimates: Evaluating the need for concern about wireless substitution. Am J Public Health2006;96:926–31.
39.
LinkMWMokdadAH. Can Web and mail survey models improve participation in an RDD-based national health surveillance?J Official Stat2006;22:293–312.
40.
LinkMWMokdadAH. Alternative modes for health surveillance surveys: An experiment with Web, mail, and telephone. Epidemiology2005;16:701–4.
41.
LinkMWBattagliaMPFrankelMROsbornLMokdadAH. Address-based versus random-digit-dial surveys: Comparison of key health and risk indicators. Am J Epidemiol2006;164:1019–25.
42.
FahimiMLinkMMokdadASchwartzDALevyP. Tracking chronic disease and risk behavior prevalence as survey participation declines: Statistics from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and other national surveys. Prev Chronic Dis2008;5:A80.
43.
GrovesRMMillerPVCannellCF. Chapter II: Differences between the telephone and personal interview data. Vital Health Stat 21987;2:11–9.
44.
GrovesRM. Survey errors and survey costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1989.
45.
MickeyRMWordenJKVacekPMSkellyJMCostanzaMC. Comparability of telephone and household breast cancer screening surveys with differing response rates. Epidemiology1994;5:462–5.
St-PierreMBelandY. Mode effects in the Canadian Community Health Survey: A comparison of CAPI and CATI. Proc Surv Res Methods Sec Am Stat Assoc2004:4438–44.
48.
HolbrookALGreenMCKrosnickJA. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opin Q2003;67:79–125.
49.
Van GoorHRispensS. A middle class image of society. Quality and Quantity2004;38:35–49.
50.
RaoRSLinkMWBattagliaMPFrankelMRGiamboPMokdadAH. Assessing representativeness in RDD surveys: Coverage and nonresponse in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Proc Surv Res Methods Sec Am Stat Assoc2005;3495–501.
51.
BattagliaMPFrankelMRLinkMW. Improving standard poststratification techniques for random-digit-dialing telephone surveys. Surv Res Methods2008;2:11–9.
52.
MuthenBKaplanD. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol1985;38:171–89.
53.
MuthenBKaplanD. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol1992;45:19–30.
