4.1 Article

The impact of T-ACASI interviewing on reported drug use among men who have sex with men

Journal

SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE
Volume 35, Issue 6-8, Pages 869-890

Publisher

MARCEL DEKKER INC
DOI: 10.3109/10826080009148425

Keywords

survey measurement; drug use; Telephone audio-CASI (T-ACASI); men who have sex with men; interview mode; probability sample

Funding

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD031067] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH056318, R01MH054320] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [R01-HD/AG31067] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R01-MH56318, R01-MH54320] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measurements of drug use and other illicit or stigmatized behaviors are subject to nontrivial underreporting biases. During in-person surveys, respondents are more likely to report such behaviors when interviewed using techniques that maximize interviewee privacy, e.g., use of paper SAQs and audio-CASI rather than questioning by human interviewers. Until recently, respondents in telephone surveys could not be offered similar privacy. A new technology, telephone audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (T-ACASI) overcomes this limitation of telephone surveys by allowing respondents to respond to a computer. A randomized experimental test of T-ACASI was embedded in the Urban Men's Health Study (UMHS). UMHS surveyed a probability sample of 2,881 men from four United States cities and who reported having sex with men. Respondents interviewed using T-ACASI reported a higher prevalence of drug use and drug-related behaviors than respondents interviewed by human interviewers. However, survey respondents were more likely to break off an interview when the interview was conducted by a T-ACASI computer rather than by a human interviewer. [Translations are provided in the International Abstracts Section of this issue.]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available