These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14651425)
1. The effect of different methods of collecting data: mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement. Hawthorne G Qual Life Res; 2003 Dec; 12(8):1081-8. PubMed ID: 14651425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of phone versus mail survey methods on the measurement of health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioural problems in adolescents. Erhart M; Wetzel RM; Krügel A; Ravens-Sieberer U BMC Public Health; 2009 Dec; 9():491. PubMed ID: 20042099 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Sensitivity of Preference-Based Quality-of-Life Measures for Economic Evaluations in Early-Stage Melanoma. Dieng M; Kasparian NA; Cust AE; Costa DSJ; Tran A; Butow PN; Menzies SW; Mann GJ; Morton RL JAMA Dermatol; 2018 Jan; 154(1):52-59. PubMed ID: 29188268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. McHorney CA; Kosinski M; Ware JE Med Care; 1994 Jun; 32(6):551-67. PubMed ID: 8189774 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview. O'Toole BI; Battistutta D; Long A; Crouch K Am J Epidemiol; 1986 Aug; 124(2):317-28. PubMed ID: 3728446 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Powers JR; Mishra G; Young AF Aust N Z J Public Health; 2005 Apr; 29(2):149-54. PubMed ID: 15915619 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Health status assessments using the Veterans SF-12 and SF-36: methods for evaluating otucomes in the Veterans Health Administration. Jones D; Kazis L; Lee A; Rogers W; Skinner K; Cassar L; Wilson N; Hendricks A J Ambul Care Manage; 2001 Jul; 24(3):68-86. PubMed ID: 11433558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using factor analysis to confirm the validity of children's self-reported health-related quality of life across different modes of administration. Varni JW; Limbers CA; Newman DA Clin Trials; 2009 Apr; 6(2):185-95. PubMed ID: 19342471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Remote Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Outpatient Hand Surgery: A Randomized Trial of Telephone, Mail, and E-Mail. Schwartzenberger J; Presson A; Lyle A; O'Farrell A; Tyser AR J Hand Surg Am; 2017 Sep; 42(9):693-699. PubMed ID: 28600107 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessing utility where short measures are required: development of the short Assessment of Quality of Life-8 (AQoL-8) instrument. Hawthorne G Value Health; 2009 Sep; 12(6):948-57. PubMed ID: 19490558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis. Hawthorne G; Densley K; Pallant JF; Mortimer D; Segal L Qual Life Res; 2008 Nov; 17(9):1183-93. PubMed ID: 18825509 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys. Siemiatycki J Am J Public Health; 1979 Mar; 69(3):238-45. PubMed ID: 420369 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Elderly nonrespondents to a mail survey: a telephone follow-up. Strayer M; Kuthy R; Sutton S Spec Care Dentist; 1993; 13(6):245-8. PubMed ID: 8042133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Telephone follow-up was more expensive but more efficient than postal in a national stroke registry. Lannin NA; Anderson C; Lim J; Paice K; Price C; Faux S; Levi C; Donnan G; Cadilhac D J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8):896-902. PubMed ID: 23810029 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quality of response in different population groups in mail and telephone surveys. Siemiatycki J; Campbell S; Richardson L; Aubert D Am J Epidemiol; 1984 Aug; 120(2):302-14. PubMed ID: 6465128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Nonresponse bias and early versus all responders in mail and telephone surveys. Siemiatycki J; Campbell S Am J Epidemiol; 1984 Aug; 120(2):291-301. PubMed ID: 6465127 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. Beebe TJ; McRae JA; Harrison PA; Davern ME; Quinlan KB J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Apr; 58(4):421-4. PubMed ID: 15868697 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Increasing response rates in telephone surveys: a randomized trial. Smith W; Chey T; Jalaludin B; Salkeld G; Capon T J Public Health Med; 1995 Mar; 17(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 7786565 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Why do people report better health by phone than by mail? Brewer NT; Hallman WK; Fiedler N; Kipen HM Med Care; 2004 Sep; 42(9):875-83. PubMed ID: 15319613 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Transitioning the Healthy Chicago Survey From a Telephone Mode to Self-administered by Mail Mode. Unangst J; Lewis T; Laflamme E; Prachand N; Weaver K J Public Health Manag Pract; 2022 May-Jun 01; 28(3):309-316. PubMed ID: 35334486 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]