Reliability of proxy-reported and self-reported household appliance use

被引:6
|
作者
Mills, KM
Kheifets, LI
Nelson, LM
Bloch, DA
Takemoto-Hambleton, R
Kelsey, JL
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Epidemiol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Dept Biostat, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[3] Elect Power Res Inst, Environm Grp, Palo Alto, CA USA
关键词
reliability; bias; proxy respondents; household appliance use; electromagnetic fields; data collection;
D O I
10.1097/00001648-200009000-00015
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Exposure assessment presents a major challenge for studies evaluating the association between household exposure to electric and magnetic fields and adverse health outcomes, especially the reliance on proxy respondents when study subjects themselves have died. We evaluated the reliability of proxy- and self-reported household appliance exposure. We recruited 92 healthy couples through either random digit dialing or newspaper advertisements. Trained interviewers administered questionnaires to each member of a couple independently to assess the reliability of proxy reported household appliance use. Eighty five couples completed a second interview 2 months later to assess the reliability of self-reported appliance use. Reliability uf proxy-reported appliance exposure was good when we inquired about having any exposure to each of ther eight indicator appliances during the past year (range of kappa coefficients = 0.63-0.85; median = 0.76) hut was lower with increased time to recall or increased detail. Reliability of self respondents reporting 2 months apart was excellent (range of kappa coefficients = 0.75-0.94; median = 0.87) for having any exposure to the eight indicator appliances during the past year, but reliability was again lower with increased detail. When we used self reports at the first interview as the standard, little systematic over or underreporting occurred for proxy respondents or fur self respondents reporting 2 months later. Because this study did not include cases of specific disease, these findings of no systematic differences in reporting do not refer to case or control status. In summary, reliability of self respondents' reports of appliance use is very good for recent time periods and good for broad aspects of exposure in distant time periods. Proxy respondents can provide information regarding broad aspects of appliance exposure in the past year, but detailed aspects of exposure or exposure in mon distant time periods is not reliable.
引用
收藏
页码:581 / 588
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Reliability of a self-reported health questionnaire in a periodontal disease study
    Ho, AW
    Grossi, SG
    Dunford, RG
    Genco, RJ
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH, 1997, 32 (08) : 646 - 650
  • [22] Quality of patient-reported and proxy-reported outcomes for children with impairment of the lower extremity: systematic review protocol
    Saris, Tim
    Kalle, Ruben
    Sierevelt, Inger
    Eygendaal, Denise
    van Bergen, Christiaan
    BMJ PAEDIATRICS OPEN, 2022, 6 (01)
  • [23] Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries
    Li, Minghui
    Harris, Ilene
    Lu, Z. Kevin
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2015, 15
  • [24] Analysis of prevalence of self-reported hearing loss and associated factors: primary versus proxy informant
    Alves de Quevedo, Andre Luis
    Leotti, Vanessa Bielefeldt
    Garcia de Goulart, Barbara Niegia
    CADERNOS DE SAUDE PUBLICA, 2017, 33 (06):
  • [25] Proxy-reported sensory measures for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review
    Soler, Nicolette
    Cordier, Reinie
    Perkes, Iain E.
    Dale, Russell C.
    Bray, Paula
    DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY, 2023, 65 (02) : 185 - 199
  • [26] Patient- and proxy-reported quality of life in advanced dementia with Lewy bodies
    Armstrong, Melissa J.
    LaBarre, Brian
    Sovich, Kaitlin
    Maixner, Susan M.
    Paulson, Henry L.
    Manning, Carol
    Fields, Julie A.
    Lunde, Angela
    Forsberg, Leah
    Boeve, Bradley F.
    Galvin, James E.
    Taylor, Angela S.
    Li, Zhigang
    ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA, 2024, 20 (04) : 2719 - 2730
  • [27] Sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and clinical validity of provider-reported symptoms: A comparison with self-reported symptoms
    Justice, AC
    Rabeneck, L
    Hays, RD
    Wu, AW
    Bozzette, SA
    JOURNAL OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROMES, 1999, 21 (02): : 126 - 133
  • [28] Retest reliability of self-reported function, self-care, and disease history
    Andresen, EM
    Malmstrom, TK
    Miller, DK
    Miller, JP
    Wolinsky, FD
    MEDICAL CARE, 2005, 43 (01) : 93 - 97
  • [29] Feasibility of Proxy-Reported EQ-5D-3L-Y and Its Agreement in Self-reported EQ-5D-3L-Y for Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
    Lin, Jiaer
    Wong, Carlos King Ho
    Cheung, Prudence Wing Hang
    Luo, Nan
    Cheung, Jason Pui Yin
    SPINE, 2020, 45 (13) : E799 - E807
  • [30] Reliability of self-reported weight and height among State bank employees
    Chor, D
    Coutinho, ED
    Laurenti, R
    REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA, 1999, 33 (01): : 16 - 23