ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2022
Organizing the health interview survey at the local level: design of a pilot study.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Living labs as catalysts for integrated primary care: insights from a comprehensive community survey and co-creative design of community-based prevention and primary care.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- Data collection in pandemic times: the case of the Belgian COVID-19 health surveys.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- Political stringency, infection rates, and higher education students' adherence to government measures in the Nordic countries and the UK during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak.Preventive medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe local Health Interview Study (LHIS) was developed to gain health information at the level of the municipality in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium. It enables municipalities to make evidence-based decisions in their public health policy. To test the feasibility of implementing the LHIS, a pilot study was conducted in Melle, a small Flemish municipality with 11.736 inhabitants.
methodsThe target sample size was 1000 (≥ 15 years). A systematic sampling technique was applied with substitutes for non-respondents who were matched in terms of statistical sector, age and sex. Selected persons were contacted by post to complete the questionnaire and in case of non-response, a reminder was sent. Questionnaires were collected using a concurrent mixed-mode design: a paper and pencil, and web option. All questions were selected from the Belgian Health Interview Survey relating to health status and determinants of health.
resultsOne thousand twenty-two questionnaires were obtained after inviting 3137 individuals (response rate = 32.6%). Older adults were more likely to participate than younger adults, and women more than men. The final sample resembled the initial sample in terms of sex and statistical sector, but not in terms of age. Younger adults were underrepresented whereas older adults were overrepresented. Lastly, older adults were more likely to fill in the questionnaire on paper than younger adults, and women more than men.
conclusionThe LHIS can be successfully implemented in Flemish municipalities. The method, however, does not guarantee that the composition of the final sample reflects the initial sample. Therefore, weights should be added in the analyses to correct for potential deviations in sample composition. Furthermore, implementing a sequential mixed-mode design with a web option preceding a paper and pencil option in future studies could reduce costs and improve data quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.