Skip to main content

Table 1 Survey sampling procedures and response details from 20 countries; International Prevalence Study, 2002–2004.

From: The International Prevalence Study on Physical Activity: results from 20 countries

Country Sampling Procedures IPAQ Short Form Administration Month Year Response Rate Sample Size 18–65 yrs % male % education> 13 years
Argentina A representative sample of Buenos Aires – Multistage stratified random selection of houses/apartments and blocks Self Jun 2003 72% 1203 44.9 46.6
Australia A nationally representative sample – RDD with simple random sample of households Telephone Apr 2003 55% 2691 44.0 48.8
Belgium A representative sample of Flanders – Random selection of municipalities/cities and inhabitants within municipality/city Self Mar–May, Sept–Oct 2003 28% 1969 51.9 45.1
Brazil State of Sao Paulo representative sample – Simple random sample proportional to size Interviewer Mar–May 2003 85% 991 48.5 N/A
Canada A nationally representative sample – RDD sample proportional to number of households in each province Telephone Sept–Nov 02 – Mar–May 03 51% 2669 45.3 62.3
China (Shanghai) A representative sample of Shanghai – Multistage sampling of 3 communities, 5 neighborhoods within communities, and adults within households Interviewer Nov–Dec 2002 84% 1593 51.5 32.5
Colombia A representative sample of Bogota DC – Multistage unequal probability selection proportional to size Interviewer Mar–May 2003 84% 3000 40.4 19.1
Czech Republic 9 academic worksites in 10 regions; a nationally representative sample – Simple random sample proportional to size. Students distributed questionnaires to permanent/temporary residences, partly randomly selected Self Nov 2002
May 2003
58% 7513 48.2 42.2
Hong Kong SAR, China A nationally representative sample – Stratified by district Interviewer Oct–Dec 02 – Jan–Feb 03 48% 4886 48.9 14.1
India Convenience sample of employees and their families from 2 worksite populations in Ghaziabad and Nagpur Interviewer Jan–Dec 2003 88% 1005 48.7 38.2
Japan 22 universities and 6 worksites from different regions of Japan, representing nearly all areas Self July 2003 90% 4959 38.4 29.2
Lithuania A systematic random sample from 10 rural districts and the 5 largest Lithuanian cities – Respondents sampled at fixed intervals after random selection of a starting point Interviewer Apr–May 2003 77% 2227 41.4 58.0
New Zealand A nationally representative sample – Simple random sample proportional to size Telephone Mar–Apr 2003 42% 1495 40.8 36.9
Norway A nationally representative sample – Simple random sampling Self Oct 2003 41.3% 1645 47.3 45.8
Portugal A nationally representative sample – Simple random sample proportional to size Self Apr–May 2002 >80% 1525 47.3 3.1
Saudi Arabia A representative sample of Riyadh City – Simple random sample of telephone-equipped households Telephone Mar–May 2003 66% 988 65.4 38.3
Spain A representative sample of Catalonia – Simple random sample proportional to size Self Oct–Nov 2002 62.4% 1580 44.9 43.5
Sweden A nationally representative sample – Simple random sampling Self Oct–Dec 2002 59% 1290 45.9 30.8
Taiwan A nationally representative sample – RDD sample proportional to number of households, in 7 stratified areas Telephone Sept–Nov 2004 48.3% 4846 47.6 40.8
USA A nationally representative sample – Simple random sample proportional to size Telephone Sept–Nov 2002 30.9% 4671 42.8 61.4
  1. Note: RDD = Random Digit Dial; CATI = computer-assisted telephone interview