Demographic and occupational differences between ethnic minority workers who did and did not complete the telephone survey in English

Terry Boyle, Renee Carey, Susan Peters, Deborah C. Glass, Lin Fritschi, Alison Reid

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Limited research indicates that using English language only surveys in prevalence studies conducted in the general population or in specific ethnic populations may result in unrepresentative samples and biased results. In this study, we investigated whether participants from ethnic minorities who chose to answer a study interview in a language other than English (LOTE) differed from those who completed the interview in English. Methods: This study was conducted within an Australian population-based telephone survey that assessed the prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among 749 ethnic minority workers. We used modified Poisson regression to determine the factors associated with completing the interview in a LOTE. Results: Participants who elected to complete the interview in a LOTE differed from those who completed it in English on several factors, including sex, country of birth, education, occupation, and occupational exposure to carcinogens (40% compared with 29%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The participants who chose to complete the study interview in their native language had several demographic differences from those participants who completed it in English, and were more likely to be exposed to carcinogens at work. Prevalence studies that offer only English language study instruments are unlikely to produce representative samples of minority groups, and may therefore produce biased results.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)862-871
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Occupational Hygiene
Volume59
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2015

Keywords

  • bias
  • carcinogens
  • ethnicity
  • language
  • minority groups
  • occupation
  • prevalence

Cite this

@article{8220d8c7ffa24e4d8bc03aa91866aaa8,
title = "Demographic and occupational differences between ethnic minority workers who did and did not complete the telephone survey in English",
abstract = "Background/Objectives: Limited research indicates that using English language only surveys in prevalence studies conducted in the general population or in specific ethnic populations may result in unrepresentative samples and biased results. In this study, we investigated whether participants from ethnic minorities who chose to answer a study interview in a language other than English (LOTE) differed from those who completed the interview in English. Methods: This study was conducted within an Australian population-based telephone survey that assessed the prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among 749 ethnic minority workers. We used modified Poisson regression to determine the factors associated with completing the interview in a LOTE. Results: Participants who elected to complete the interview in a LOTE differed from those who completed it in English on several factors, including sex, country of birth, education, occupation, and occupational exposure to carcinogens (40{\%} compared with 29{\%}, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The participants who chose to complete the study interview in their native language had several demographic differences from those participants who completed it in English, and were more likely to be exposed to carcinogens at work. Prevalence studies that offer only English language study instruments are unlikely to produce representative samples of minority groups, and may therefore produce biased results.",
keywords = "bias, carcinogens, ethnicity, language, minority groups, occupation, prevalence",
author = "Terry Boyle and Renee Carey and Susan Peters and Glass, {Deborah C.} and Lin Fritschi and Alison Reid",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1093/annhyg/mev021",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "862--871",
journal = "Annals of Occupational Hygiene",
issn = "0003-4878",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "7",

}

Demographic and occupational differences between ethnic minority workers who did and did not complete the telephone survey in English. / Boyle, Terry; Carey, Renee; Peters, Susan; Glass, Deborah C.; Fritschi, Lin; Reid, Alison.

In: Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Vol. 59, No. 7, 08.2015, p. 862-871.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Demographic and occupational differences between ethnic minority workers who did and did not complete the telephone survey in English

AU - Boyle, Terry

AU - Carey, Renee

AU - Peters, Susan

AU - Glass, Deborah C.

AU - Fritschi, Lin

AU - Reid, Alison

PY - 2015/8

Y1 - 2015/8

N2 - Background/Objectives: Limited research indicates that using English language only surveys in prevalence studies conducted in the general population or in specific ethnic populations may result in unrepresentative samples and biased results. In this study, we investigated whether participants from ethnic minorities who chose to answer a study interview in a language other than English (LOTE) differed from those who completed the interview in English. Methods: This study was conducted within an Australian population-based telephone survey that assessed the prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among 749 ethnic minority workers. We used modified Poisson regression to determine the factors associated with completing the interview in a LOTE. Results: Participants who elected to complete the interview in a LOTE differed from those who completed it in English on several factors, including sex, country of birth, education, occupation, and occupational exposure to carcinogens (40% compared with 29%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The participants who chose to complete the study interview in their native language had several demographic differences from those participants who completed it in English, and were more likely to be exposed to carcinogens at work. Prevalence studies that offer only English language study instruments are unlikely to produce representative samples of minority groups, and may therefore produce biased results.

AB - Background/Objectives: Limited research indicates that using English language only surveys in prevalence studies conducted in the general population or in specific ethnic populations may result in unrepresentative samples and biased results. In this study, we investigated whether participants from ethnic minorities who chose to answer a study interview in a language other than English (LOTE) differed from those who completed the interview in English. Methods: This study was conducted within an Australian population-based telephone survey that assessed the prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among 749 ethnic minority workers. We used modified Poisson regression to determine the factors associated with completing the interview in a LOTE. Results: Participants who elected to complete the interview in a LOTE differed from those who completed it in English on several factors, including sex, country of birth, education, occupation, and occupational exposure to carcinogens (40% compared with 29%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The participants who chose to complete the study interview in their native language had several demographic differences from those participants who completed it in English, and were more likely to be exposed to carcinogens at work. Prevalence studies that offer only English language study instruments are unlikely to produce representative samples of minority groups, and may therefore produce biased results.

KW - bias

KW - carcinogens

KW - ethnicity

KW - language

KW - minority groups

KW - occupation

KW - prevalence

U2 - 10.1093/annhyg/mev021

DO - 10.1093/annhyg/mev021

M3 - Review Article

VL - 59

SP - 862

EP - 871

JO - Annals of Occupational Hygiene

JF - Annals of Occupational Hygiene

SN - 0003-4878

IS - 7

ER -