IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1992823412-416_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Behavioral Risk Factor Survey and the Stanford Five-City Project Survey: A comparison of cardiovascular risk behavior estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Jackson, C.
  • Jatulis, D.E.
  • Fortmann, S.P.

Abstract

Background. Nearly all state health departments collect Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (BRFS) data, and many report using these data in public health planning. Although the BRFS is widely used, little is known about its measurement properties. This study compares the cardiovascular risk behavior estimates of the BRFS with estimates derived from the physiological and interview data of the Stanford Five-City Project Survey (FCPS). Method. The BRFS is a random telephone sample of 1588 adults aged 25 to 64; the FCPS is a random household sample of 1512 adults aged 25 to 64. Both samples were drawn from the same four California communities. Results. The surveys produced comparable estimates for measures of current smoking, number of cigarettes smoked per day, rate of ever being told one has high blood pressure, rate of prescription of blood pressure medications, compliance in taking medications, and mean total cholesterol. Significant differences were found for mean body mass index, rates of obesity, and, in particular, rate of controlled hypertension. Conclusions. These differences indicate that, for some risk variables, the BRFS has limited utility in assessing public health needs and setting public health objectives. A formal validation study is needed to test all the risk behavior estimates measured by this widely used instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Jackson, C. & Jatulis, D.E. & Fortmann, S.P., 1992. "The Behavioral Risk Factor Survey and the Stanford Five-City Project Survey: A comparison of cardiovascular risk behavior estimates," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(3), pages 412-416.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:3:412-416_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:3:412-416_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.