Audio‐computerized self‐interviewing versus face‐to‐face interviewing for research data collection at drug abuse treatment programs

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Aims  To assess audio computer‐assisted self‐interviewing (A‐CASI) as a mode of data collection with injecting drug users (IDUs) entering two drug treatment programs in New York City. A‐CASI has been found to increase reporting of sensitive items among a variety of population subgroups.Design  A field test of A‐CASI data collection conducted within an ongoing cross‐sectional study of drug use and HIV risk behaviors among IDUs entering drug treatment. Participants were assigned without bias to either a computer‐assisted interviewer‐administered personal interview (CAPI) or to a mixed CAPI/A‐CASI interview. In the latter, ‘sensitive’ portions (dealing with stigmatized behavior) of the questionnaire were self‐administered through A‐CASI, while the remaining portions were interviewer‐administered.Setting  The Detoxification Program and the Methadone Maintenance Treatment Program (MMTP) at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City.Participants  Seven hundred and eighty‐three IDUs entering drug treatment.Measurements  Odds ratios and adjusted odds ratios (controlling for demographic differences) for comparison of A‐CASI versus CAPI responses on 111 sensitive questions.Findings  Twenty‐three statistically significant differences (each at P < 0.05), all in the direction of more reporting of the behaviors by the A‐CASI group. Forty‐one per cent of A‐CASI participants said they would prefer any subsequent interviews to be fully A‐CASI and 46% said they would prefer the mixed CAPI/A‐CASI mode.Conclusions  A‐CASI was associated with greater reporting of potentially stigmatized drug, sex and HIV risk behaviors on a moderate number of questions. Moreover, a large majority of participants who used A‐CASI would like to be assigned to this method of data collection in future interviews.