Differences Between Landline and Mobile Phone Users in Sexual Behavior Research.

This study investigated differences between the demographic characteristics, participation rates (i.e., agreeing to respond to questions about sexual behavior), and sexual behaviors of landline and mobile phone samples in Australia. A nationally representative sample of Australians aged 18 years and over was recruited via random digit dialing in December 2011 to collect data via computer-assisted telephone interviews. A total of 1012 people (370 men, 642 women) completed a landline interview and 1002 (524 men, 478 women) completed a mobile phone interview. Results revealed that telephone user status was significantly related to all demographic variables: gender, age, educational attainment, area of residence, country of birth, household composition, and current ongoing relationship status. In unadjusted analyses, telephone status was also associated with women's participation rates, participants' number of other-sex sexual partners in the previous year, and women's lifetime sexual experience. However, after controlling for significant demographic factors, telephone status was only independently related to women's participation rates. Post hoc analyses showed that significant, between-group differences for all other sexual behavior outcomes could be explained by demographic covariates. Results also suggested that telephone status may be associated with participation bias in research on sexual behavior. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of sampling both landline and mobile phone users to improve the representativeness of sexual behavior data collected via telephone interviews.

An Examination of the Prevalence, Consumer Profiles, and Patterns of Energy Drink Use, With and Without Alcohol, in Australia.

BACKGROUND: There has been a significant growth in the energy drink (ED) market in Australia and around the world; however, most research investigating the popularity of ED and alcohol and energy drink (AED) use has focused on specific subpopulations such as university students. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence, consumption patterns, and sociodemographic correlates of ED and combined AED use among a representative Australian population sample. METHODS: A computer-assisted telephone interview survey (n = 2,000) was undertaken in March-April 2013 of persons aged 18 years and over. Half of the interviews were obtained through randomly generated landline telephone numbers and half through mobile phones. Approximately half of the sample was female (55.5%; n = 1,110) and the mean age of participants was 45.9 (range 18 to 95, SD 20.0). RESULTS: Less than 1 in 6 Australians reported ED use (13.4%, n = 268) and 4.6% (n = 91) reported AED use in the past 3 months. Majority of ED and AED users consumed these beverages monthly or less. ED and AED users are more likely to be aged 18 to 24 years, live in a metropolitan area, and be moderate risk or problem gamblers. AED consumers are more likely to report moderate levels of psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings in relation to problem gambling and psychological distress are novel and require further targeted investigation. Health promotion strategies directed toward reducing ED and AED use should focus on young people living in metropolitan areas and potentially be disseminated through locations where gambling takes place.

Improving gambling survey research using dual-frame sampling of landline and mobile phone numbers.

Gambling prevalence studies are typically conducted within a single (landline) telephone sampling frame. This practice continues, despite emerging evidence that significant differences exist between landline and mobile (cell) phone only households. This study utilised a dual-frame (landline and mobile) telephone sampling methodology to cast light on the extent of differences across groups of respondents in respect to demographic, health, and gambling characteristics. A total of 2,014 participants from across Australian states and territories ranging in age from 18 to 96 years participated. Interviews were conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing technology where 1,012 respondents from the landline sampling frame and 1,002 from the mobile phone sampling frame completed a questionnaire about gambling and other health behaviours. Responses across the landline sampling frame, the mobile phone sampling frame, and the subset of the mobile phone sampling frame that possessed a mobile phone only (MPO) were contrasted. The findings revealed that although respondents in the landline sample (62.7 %) did not significantly differ from respondents in the mobile phone sample (59.2 %) in gambling participation in the previous 12 months, they were significantly more likely to have gambled in the previous 12 months than the MPO sample (56.4 %). There were no significant differences in internet gambling participation over the previous 12 months in the landline sample (4.7 %), mobile phone sample (4.7 %) and the MPO sample (5.0 %). However, endorsement of lifetime problem gambling on the NODS-CLiP was significantly higher within the mobile sample (10.7 %) and the MPO sample (14.8 %) than the landline sample (6.6 %). Our research supports previous findings that reliance on a traditional landline telephone sampling approach effectively excludes distinct subgroups of the population from being represented in research findings. Consequently, we suggest that research best practice necessitates the use of a dual-frame sampling methodology. Despite inherent logistical and cost issues, this approach needs to become the norm in gambling survey research.

Surveying alcohol and other drug use through telephone sampling: a comparison of landline and mobile phone samples.

BACKGROUND: Telephone surveys based on samples of landline telephone numbers are widely used to measure the prevalence of health risk behaviours such as smoking, drug use and alcohol consumption. An increasing number of households are relying solely on mobile telephones, creating a potential bias for population estimates derived from landline-based sampling frames which do not incorporate mobile phone numbers. Studies in the US have identified significant differences between landline and mobile telephone users in smoking and alcohol consumption, but there has been little work in other settings or focussed on illicit drugs. METHODS: This study examined Australian prevalence estimates of cannabis use, tobacco smoking and risky alcohol consumption based on samples selected using a dual-frame (mobile and landline) approach. Respondents from the landline sample were compared both to the overall mobile sample (including respondents who had access to a landline) and specifically to respondents who lived in mobile-only households. Bivariate comparisons were complemented with multivariate logistic regression models, controlling for the effects of basic demographic variables. RESULTS: The landline sample reported much lower prevalence of tobacco use, cannabis use and alcohol consumption than the mobile samples. Once demographic variables were adjusted for, there were no significant differences between the landline and mobile respondents on any of the alcohol measures examined. In contrast, the mobile samples had significantly higher rates of cannabis and tobacco use, even after adjustment. Weighted estimates from the dual-frame sample were generally higher than the landline sample across all substances, but only significantly higher for tobacco use. CONCLUSIONS: Landline telephone surveys in Australia are likely to substantially underestimate the prevalence of tobacco smoking by excluding potential respondents who live in mobile-only households. In contrast, estimates of alcohol consumption and cannabis use from landline surveys are likely to be broadly accurate, once basic demographic weighting is undertaken.

Profiling the mobile-only population in Australia: insights from the Australian National Health Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Australian population that relies on mobile phones exclusively has increased from 5% in 2005 to 29% in 2014. Failing to include this mobile-only population leads to a potential bias in estimates from landline-based telephone surveys. This paper considers the impacts on selected health prevalence estimates with and without the mobile-only population. METHODS: Using data from the Australian Health Survey - which, for the first time, included a question on telephone status - we examined demographic, geographic and health differences between the landline-accessible and mobile-only population. These groups were also compared to the full population, controlling for the sampling design and differential non-response patterns in the observed sample through weighting and benchmarking. RESULTS: The landline-accessible population differs from the mobile-only population for selected health measures resulting in biased prevalence estimates for smoking, alcohol risk and private health insurance coverage in the full population. The differences remain even after adjusting for age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Using landline telephones only for conducting population health surveys will have an impact on prevalence rate estimates of health risk factors due to the differing profiles of the mobile-only population from the landline-accessible population.