Comparison of telephone sampling and area sampling: Response rates and within-household coverage

Random digit dialing is used frequently in epidemiologic case-control studies to select population-based controls, even when both cases and controls are interviewed face-to-face. However, concerns persist about the potential biases of random digit dialing, particularly given its generally lower response rates. In an Atlanta, Georgia, case-control study of breast cancer among women aged 20-54 years, all of whom were interviewed face-to-face, two statistically independent control groups were compared: those obtained through random digit dialing (n = 652) and those obtained through area probability sampling (n = 640). The household screening rate was significantly higher for the area sample, by 5.5%. interview response rates were comparable. The telephone sample estimated a significantly larger percentage (by approximately 7%) of households to have no age-eligible women. Both control groups, appropriately weighted, had characteristics similar to US Census demographic characteristics for Atlanta women, except that respondents in both control groups were more educated and more likely to be married. The authors conclude that households contacted through random digit dialing are somewhat less likely to participate in the household screening process, and if they are cooperative, some households may not disclose that age-eligible women reside therein. Investigators need to develop improved methods for screening and enumerating household members in random digit dialing surveys that target a specific subpopulation, such as women.