| 1. |
- Sperber, A. D., et al.
(författare)
-
Face-to-face interviews versus Internet surveys: Comparison of two data collection methods in the Rome foundation global epidemiology study: Implications for population-based research
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Neurogastroenterology and Motility. - 1350-1925. ; 35:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and AimsThe Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) assessed the prevalence, burden, and associated factors of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) in 33 countries around the world. Achieving worldwide sampling necessitated use of two different surveying methods: In-person household interviews (9 countries) and Internet surveys (26 countries). Two countries, China and Turkey, were surveyed with both methods. This paper examines the differences in the survey results with the two methods, as well as likely reasons for those differences. MethodsThe two RFGES survey methods are described in detail, and differences in DGBI findings summarized for household versus Internet surveys globally, and in more detail for China and Turkey. Logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate factors contributing to these differences. ResultsOverall, DGBI were only half as prevalent when assessed with household vs Internet surveys. Similar patterns of methodology-related DGBI differences were seen within both China and Turkey, but prevalence differences between the survey methods were dramatically larger in Turkey. No clear reasons for outcome differences by survey method were identified, although greater relative reduction in bowel and anorectal versus upper gastrointestinal disorders when household versus Internet surveying was used suggests an inhibiting influence of social sensitivity. ConclusionsThe findings strongly indicate that besides affecting data quality, manpower needs and data collection time and costs, the choice of survey method is a substantial determinant of symptom reporting and DGBI prevalence outcomes. This has important implications for future DGBI research and epidemiological research more broadly.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sperber, A. D., et al.
(författare)
-
Worldwide Prevalence and Burden of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, Results of Rome Foundation Global Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Gastroenterology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0016-5085. ; 160:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), now called disorders of gut-brain interaction, have major economic effects on health care systems and adversely affect quality of life, little is known about their global prevalence and distribution. We investigated the prevalence of and factors associated with 22 FGIDs, in 33 countries on 6 continents. METHODS: Data were collected via the Internet in 24 countries, personal interviews in 7 countries, and both in 2 countries, using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, Rome III irritable bowel syndrome questions, and 80 items to identify variables associated with FGIDs. Data collection methods differed for Internet and household groups, so data analyses were conducted and reported separately. RESULTS: Among the 73,076 adult respondents (49.5% women), diagnostic criteria were met for at least 1 FGID by 40.3% persons who completed the Internet surveys (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9-40.7) and 20.7% of persons who completed the household surveys (95% CI, 20.2-21.3). FGIDs were more prevalent among women than men, based on responses to the Internet survey (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.7) and household survey (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). FGIDs were associated with lower quality of life and more frequent doctor visits. Proportions of subjects with irritable bowel syndrome were lower when the Rome IV criteria were used, compared with the Rome III criteria, in the Internet survey (4.1% vs 10.1%) and household survey (1.5% vs 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In a large-scale multinational study, we found that more than 40% of persons worldwide have FGIDs, which affect quality of life and health care use. Although the absolute prevalence was higher among Internet respondents, similar trends and relative distributions were found in people who completed Internet vs personal interviews.
|
|
| 3. |
- Tremblay, Mark S, et al.
(författare)
-
Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) - Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1479-5868. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The prominence of sedentary behavior research in health science has grown rapidly. With this growth there is increasing urgency for clear, common and accepted terminology and definitions. Such standardization is difficult to achieve, especially across multi-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, and industries. The Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) undertook a Terminology Consensus Project to address this need.First, a literature review was completed to identify key terms in sedentary behavior research. These key terms were then reviewed and modified by a Steering Committee formed by SBRN. Next, SBRN members were invited to contribute to this project and interested participants reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed list of terms and draft definitions through an online survey. Finally, a conceptual model and consensus definitions (including caveats and examples for all age groups and functional abilities) were finalized based on the feedback received from the 87 SBRN member participants who responded to the original invitation and survey.Consensus definitions for the terms physical inactivity, stationary behavior, sedentary behavior, standing, screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, sitting, reclining, lying, sedentary behavior pattern, as well as how the terms bouts, breaks, and interruptions should be used in this context are provided.It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors.
|
|
