Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethnic Differences in Reported Smoking Behaviors in Face-to-Face and Telephone Interviews

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

Abstract

Different modes of gathering data on self-reported health measures and self-reported risk factors are used frequently in research. However, data on the influence of the mode of collection of data on self-reporting are limited. The aim of the study was to identify associations between the mode of data collection and self-reported smoking in two distinct ethnic groups, Jews and Arabs in Israel. During the last 2 years, data were collected in two national surveys regarding the smoking behaviors of Jews and Arabs in Israel. In the telephone surveys 4713 Israeli residents were interviewed and in the face-to-face interviewees 3239 people were interviewed. The interviewees were between the ages 25 and 64. There was no significant difference in smoking rates between face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews among Jewish men or women after adjusting for other variables associated with smoking. However, there was a difference between the two methods of data collection in the Arab population also after the adjustment. In this group, respondents tended to report more often being a smoker in the face-to-face interviews. This was especially apparent in Arab women. There was no significant difference in the reported number of cigarettes smoked in the two modes of data collection. In Arabs compared to Jews there is a significant difference between reporting smoking during a telephone interview and a face-to-face interview. The mode of data collection can affect comparisons between different groups.

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. Morabia A, Berbstein MS, Curtin F, Berode M. Validation of self-reported smoking status by simultaneous measurement of carbon monoxide and salivary thiocyanate. Prev Med 2001; 32: 82–88.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Parker DR, Lasater TM, Windsor R, Wilkins J, Upegui DI, Heimdal J. The accuracy of self-reported smoking status assessed by cotinine test strips. Nicotine Tob Res 2002; 4: 305–309.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Patrick DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, Diehr P, Koepsell T, Kinne S. The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 1086–1093.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brogger J, Bakke P, Eide GE, Gulsvik A. Comparison of telephone and postal survey modes on respiratory symptoms and risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 2002; 155: 572–576.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kaplan CP, Hilton JF, Park-Tanjasiri S, Perez-Stable EJ. The effect of data collection mode on smoking attitudes and behavior in young African American and Latina women. Face-to-face interview versus selfadministered questionnaires. Eval Rev 2001; 25: 454–473.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Groves RM, Kahn RL. Surveys by telephone: A national comparison with personal interviews. New York: Academic Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schuman H, Presser S. Questions and answers in attitude surveys, experiments on question form, wording, and context. Thousand oaks. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 326–331.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rogers TF. Interviews by telephone and in person: Quality of responses and field performance. In: Singer E, Presser S (eds), Survey research methods A reader. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rintala Dh, Willems EP. Telephone versus face-to-face mode for collecting self-reports of sequence of behavior. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72: 477–481.

    Google Scholar 

  10. O'Toole BI, Battistutta D, Long A, Crouch K. A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: Mail, telephone and personal home interview. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 124: 317–328.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Central Bureau of Statistics. Statistical Abstract of Israel 2001. No. 52, Jerusalem, The State of Israel, 2001.

  12. Israel Center for Disease Control. Health Status in Israel 1999. Israel, Israel Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health, Publication No. 209, 1999.

  13. Israel Center for Disease Control. Health Status of Arab Israelis. Israel, Israel Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health, Publication No. 226, 2003 (Hebrew and Arabic).

  14. Luepker RV, Pallonen UE, Murray DM, Pirie PL. Validity of telephone surveys in assessing cigarette smoking in young adults. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 202–204.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donovan RJ, Holman CD, Corti B, Jalleh G. Face-toface household interviews versus telephone interviews for health surveys. Aust NZ J Public Health 1997; 21: 134–140.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kaplan CP, Tanjasiri SP. The effects of interview mode on smoking attitudes and behavior: Self-report among female Latino adolescents. Subst Use Misuse 1996; 31: 947–963.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Caraballo RS, Giovino GA, Pechacek TF, Mowery PD. Factors associated with discrepancies between selfreports on cigarette smoking and measured serum 685 cotinine levels among persons aged 17 years or older: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 15: 807–814.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chor D, Faerstein E, Alves MG, de Souza Lopes C. How reproducible is self-reported information on exposure to smoking, drinking, and dietary patterns?Evidence among Brazilian adults in the Pro-Saude Study. Sao Paulo Med J 2003; 121: 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Starr GJ, Dal Grande E, Taylor AW, Wilson DH. Reliability of self-reported behavioural health risk factors in a South Australian survey. Aust NZ J Public Health 1999; 23: 528–530.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Donato F, Boffetta P, Fazioli R, Gelatit U, Porru S. Reliability of data on smoking habit and coffee drinking collected by personal interview in a hospital-based case-control study. Eur J Epidemiol 1998; 14: 259–267.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vartiainen E, Seppala T, Lillsunde P, Pushka P. Validation of self-reported smoking by serum cotinine measurement in a community-based study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56: 167–170.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Olivieri M, Poli A, Zuccaro P, et al. Tobacco smoke exposure and serum cotinine in a random sample of adults living in Verona, Italy. Arch Environ Health 2002; 57: 355–359.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Etter JF, Vu Duc T, Perneger TV. Saliva cotinine levels in smokers and non-smokers. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151: 251–258.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Parazzini F, Davoli E, Rabaiotti M, et al. Validity of self-reported smoking habits in pregnancy: A saliva cotinine analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996; 75: 352–354.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pokorski TL, Chen WW, Bertholf RL. Use of urine cotinine to validate smoking self-reports in US Navy recruits. Addict Behav 1994; 19: 451–454.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Slattery ML, Hunt SC, French TK, Ford MH, Williams RR. Validity of cigarette smoking habits in three epidemiologic studies in Utah. Prev Med 1989; 18: 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bauman KE, Ennett SE. Tobacco use by black and white adolescents: The validity of self-reports. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 394–398.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wills TA, Cleary SD. The validity of self-reports of smoking: Analysis by race/ethnicity in a school sample of urban adolescents. Am J Public Health 1997; 87: 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Clark PI, Gautam SP, Hlaing WM, Gerson LW. Response error in self-reported current smoking frequency by black and white established smokers. Ann Epidemiol 1996; 6: 483–389.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Potthoff RF. Telephone sampling in epidemiologic research: To reap the benefits, avoid the pitfalls. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 139: 967–978.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson K, Roe B, Wright L. Telephone or face-to-face interviews?: A decision made on the basis of a pilot study. Int J Nurs Stud 1988; 35: 314–321.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Israel Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health, Tel Hashomer

    Orna Baron-Epel, Amalia Haviv-Messika, Manfred S Green & Dorit Nitzan Kalutzki

  2. The Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Studies, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905, Israel

    Orna Baron-Epel

  3. Food and Nutrition Services, Public Health Services, Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel

    Dorit Nitzan Kalutzki

Authors
  1. Orna Baron-Epel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amalia Haviv-Messika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manfred S Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dorit Nitzan Kalutzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baron-Epel, O., Haviv-Messika, A., Green, M.S. et al. Ethnic Differences in Reported Smoking Behaviors in Face-to-Face and Telephone Interviews. Eur J Epidemiol 19, 679–686 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EJEP.0000036792.58923.75

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EJEP.0000036792.58923.75

Search

Navigation