Citation

Day LM, Dosman J, Hagel LM, Dostaler S, Snodgrass P, Thiessen J, Brison RJ, Biem HJ, Marlenga BL, Koehncke N, Crowe T, Pahwa P, Pickett W. Prev. Med. 2008; 46(4): 364-369.

Affiliation

Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria, 3800, Australia. lesley.day@muarc.monash.edu.au

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.10.002

PMID

18061658

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of three different communication technologies for collection of health outcomes from farm households. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in central Saskatchewan, Canada in 2006. The 94 farms completing the baseline questionnaire were randomly assigned to follow-up by regular mail (n=30), computer telephony (n=32), or their choice of regular mail, computer telephony, or e-mail follow-up (n=32). The primary endpoints were absolute differences in the proportions of farms using the assigned method to provide follow-up data, 2 months post-recruitment. RESULTS: Of the total study population, 51 (54.3%) provided follow-up information. Farms in the regular mail arm were more likely to submit follow-up data than farms in the other arms (27/30 regular mail vs. 23/32 choice vs. 2/32 computer telephony). The differences in proportions between the computer telephony and other study arms were highly significant (e.g., absolute difference between regular mail and computer telephony 83.7% [95% CI: 70.1%, 97.3%; p<0.001]). CONCLUSION: The optimal method for health outcome data collection from farm households in our study is regular mail. Despite their novelty and attractiveness, caution is warranted when adopting modern communication technologies in population health research.

Language: en