4.6 Article

Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: Web-based questionnaire versus paper-and-pencil questionnaire

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 289-295

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.03.017

关键词

substance use; adolescents; web-based questionnaire; paper-and-pencil questionnaire; school survey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate, using a randomized trial, whether a web-based self-administered questionnaire (web SAQ) can improve the reporting rate of substance use in adolescents compared with a paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaire (paper SAQ). Methods: Students of junior high, senior high, and vocational high schools in Taipei City and County were selected by a stratified, two-stage, probability proportional to size, random sampling. For each class selected, half of the students were randomly assigned to paper SAQ (n = 990) and the other half to web SAQ (n = 928). The inverse of the sampling probability for each individual was then used as sampling weight in the estimation of prevalence and logistic regression analysis. Results: For readily available substances, the lifetime prevalence in the web SAQ group was significantly higher for alcohol use and borderline higher for tobacco and betel nut use compared to those of the paper SAQ group. For illicit drug use, the lifetime prevalence for the web SAQ group was significantly higher for the use of amphetamines, and borderline higher for ketamine. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the differences between the two groups in the use of alcohol, tobacco, and amphetamines remained significant. Boys, as well as both junior-high and vocational high school students who responded using the web SAQ, were more likely to report alcohol or tobacco use than those using the paper SAQ. Conclusions: Web SAQ leads to higher reporting rates of commonly used substances in adolescents compared with those of paper SAQ. (c) 2005 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据