Address-based versus random-digit-dial surveys: comparison of key health and risk indicators

Use of random-digit dialing (RDD) for conducting health surveys is increasingly problematic because of declining participation rates and eroding frame coverage. Alternative survey modes and sampling frames may improve response rates and increase the validity of survey estimates. In a 2005 pilot study conducted in six states as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the authors administered a mail survey to selected household members sampled from addresses in a US Postal Service database. The authors compared estimates based on data from the completed mail surveys (n = 3,010) with those from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone surveys (n = 18,780). The mail survey data appeared reasonably complete, and estimates based on data from the two survey modes were largely equivalent. Differences found, such as differences in the estimated prevalences of binge drinking (mail = 20.3%, telephone = 13.1%) or behaviors linked to human immunodeficiency virus transmission (mail = 7.1%, telephone = 4.2%), were consistent with previous research showing that, for questions about sensitive behaviors, self-administered surveys generally produce higher estimates than interviewer-administered surveys. The mail survey also provided access to cell-phone-only households and households without telephones, which cannot be reached by means of standard RDD surveys.