The USF Health Survey was poorly designed
 

In the survey, there were no significant in depth questions about the quality of foods being eaten by Villagers. This represents a huge oversight.

Also, there were no questions specifically about exercise.

In light of this, please tell me how we are going to become America's healthiest hometown?

However, there were plenty of questions about your state of mind, such as: "felt downhearted and blue?" "felt so down in the dumps nobody could cheer you up?" "felt calm and peaceful?" "been a happy person?" "been nervous?"

Based on this survey, it seems obvious that the plan is not to encourage Villagers to eat healthier foods and exercise. The plan is to be more effective in treating symptoms by whatever means. This way, there won't be any big burden on Villagers to take responsibility for maintaining their own health and well being.

I have decided NOT to participate in this survey because I'm a firm believer in living a healthy lifestyle. And a BIG part of living a healthy lifestyle includes eating healthy (non-processed) whole foods and getting at least moderate exercise.

I find it amazing that they think this survey is going to be the greatest health study of all time and that The Villages may end up being the model for the rest of the world. The healthiest places in the world, like Okinawa, are places where people live healthy lifestyles and rely very little on doctors. This survey suggests that we do the opposite; the emphasis is put on relying on doctors to achieve good health.

I'm not sure which version of the survey you had, but mine had several questions about the amount of fruits and vegetables consumed daily, especially dark, green vegetables. It also had questions about how I would respond to education regarding consuming fruits and vegetables among other things. It also asked how often I eat out, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption, etc. And mine asked specifically about the amount of regular and cardiovascular exercise I get weekly.

I would hope before you put down an entire study, you actually get factual information about the range of the study and its intent.

Mine too.

Ummmmm, VillagesPL, we know you are a health fanatic, not everyone is tho. And we know no one is perfect. Haven't gotten our survey yet, but was in one of the focus groups and know the survey was to be designed to cover a broad spectrum of health concerns, isssues, etc....
Have you been to Okinawa? Maybe you need an extended visit there to enjoy the health benefits from living their lifestyle.

I filled out my survey which had 68 questions or so. The other two for the household had around 58 and 51.

I too remember various questions about food and a few about daily exercise and the like.

The shortest version was a lot skimpier than the other two on lifestyle. I thumbed though all three blank ones.

There were different versions of the survey? I went to the last health lecture which was all about the survey and what to expect. No mention was made of there being different versions of it.


Mine had somthing about caffeine and alcohol but none of the other things you mentioned.

I went to every USF health lecture because I was enthusiastic about the project and wanted to be as informed as I could be. I even took the time to be in one of the focus groups. You can be sure I will call or visit the USF office on monday to find out if there were different versions sent out. If I can I might try to find the questions online. (I don't have the the web address with me at this time.)

Have things gotten so bad in today's world that one who eats a healthy diet is called a fanatic? :) I'll assume you meant it as a compliment.


Could you take some notes? Let me know if there were questions about dark leafy greens and how often you went out to eat. And the total number of questions on the survey. Thanks.

No I haven't been there. There's a book on the subject. The title is: "The Okinawa Program: how the world's longest-lived people achieve everlasting health -and how you can too"

The book is the result of a long term population study that lasted over 20 years. But I think there may be an updated version of it now.

There are three version at least 68, 58, 51 questions. Also an ID number located on the front page top right.Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I just checked some notes and my survey had 58 numbered questions plus two extra that were not numbered. So your survey had a lot more than mine. Was there any reason given for doing this?

I can't imagine what the reason would be for not asking the same questions of everyone. This is not helping to change my poor opinion of the survey. I think it's really bad that they would do this without informing us of it.

You had three surveys in your household and could compare one with another. I only got one, so naturally I thought they were all the same.

I think it's weird that they didn't inform us of the different versions. Maybe they thought no one would notice? Mine had 58 numbered questions and two extra (essay type) questions. I think I will just call the office on Monday and ask about it. But I have lost my enthusiasm for survey and will very likely not send mine in. I say, "screw it!" :) After all the agravation, I don't care about it anymore. If they don't want to bother asking me about my eating habits, I won't bother sending it in.

:shocked: No questions about Smoke Alarms???

It's Nap time for BOMBERO.
 

:)No, BOMBERO, this thread is about the USF health survey. Now be a good boy and take your nap. :)

WVLG had an extensive interview with one of the people involved with the survey. She explained that there were different versions of the survey, the numbering which isn't meant to be a tracking number, etc.

If you're that interested in tearing them apart, visit the office in LSL.

Do they assume that all 85,000 Villagers have their radios on 24 hours a day? They could have explained it on the cover page that was attached to the survey. Also, they could have explained it at the last lecture which was for the purpose of explaining everything about the survey.

Tear them apart for what? It's their survey and they can do whatever they want. But that doesn't mean I have to be a lap-dog and act as though everything is okay. I'm no longer in the mood to participate in their stupid survey.

If I didn't get all of the questions that everyone else got, I still say it was a poorly designed survey. And, hey, Mallory, if it was an extensive interview on the radio, tell me why there were different versions of the survey. What was the explaination for it?

I am somewhat surprised that you didn't know that there were three versions. Dr. Peterson specifically addressed that subject at her lecture on 2/7 at Savannah. As I understood it, only pages 6 and 7 were different; pages 1-5 were supposedly standard.

Having elsewhere urged everyone to complete the survey, and not straying from my position in that regard, I must also admit that I was somewhat disappointed in certain aspects of the actual survey.

However, experience reminds me that designing a survey to be completed by as many as 87,000 people in such a way that all the respondents will be happy, or that the designers will actually be happy with the results they glean, is not only next to impossible but also probably impossible!

I will once again urge everyone to complete the survey as sent to you. I am persuaded that there will be a follow-on survey before the year is out aimed at addressing some of the "faults" in this first survey!

SWR
:beer3:

OK, consider this. Let's say the developers of the survey came up with about 100 questions they want to ask. But they are concerned that recipients will balk at a survey that long, so they want get the returns they need to make the results usable. So, they design several versions of the survey, so that all 100 questions get asked, but not by everyone surveyed. They can send out the versions randomly so that an equal number of each version is distributed. With 80,000 surveys out, there should be enough response to each question to make it legitimate. IMO not poorly designed. Sorry you feel slighted, and hope you participate.

PS I have no relationship with USF, and don't know if this was their rationale for the different surveys. But my experience with similar surveys leads me to this hypothesis.

Thank you and swrinfla for your thoughtfull input. If this issue alone were the only reason for me not participating, I probably would change my mind. But as you will see in a new thread, there's more. Thread heading: Why the USF/Villages health alliance is a bad idea.

I was is a focus group. That is exactly what happened.

Villages Pl. The survey was to get information on topics that were of interest to USF. The survey was not designed to get information that was of interest to you.

You have stated you take no medication, which is nice and extremely unusual but that doesn't mean you are in better health than those of us who take medications.

You try to make wise choices for a healthy diet and to have enough exercise and that is very good. But many people have done the same and because of the genetic hand they were dealt or being in a situation where they were exposed to something, they developed illness.

I think you are a wonderful person, and a caring person and a person that I would want to know, but there are other ways to look at health in general and perhaps USF is doing just that, and perhaps they aren't.

I don't have a huge medical background or one in research, but the survey seems to me to be a good first step in gaining information from this very interesting group of grown up people. It is a LARGE group of people over 55 who are largely able to care for themselves and have the means to do so, which makes it an interesting demographic.

I can see how much this whole issue means to you and I think it is heading in the very direction you would hope, eventually anyway.

Well said, Gracie. Hope villagesPL reads your response and thinks about it, then decides that it would be a good idea to complete the survey.
It's a start for sure.
The famous Framingham Heart study started out with much less sophistication than this USF study and it was the standard bearer for years.

For Village PL

I too attended the lecture by Dr. Peterson at Savannah on Feb. 7

The various versions of the survery were definitely discussed.

None of my information was of interest to me. It was just a lot of boring information that I already knew about myself. :smiley: I know what you mean though. By the way, I'm already in a health study: It's the, "NIH AARP Diet and Health Study". It started in 1995 and is still ongoing. There were a lot more questions about everything. There were seemingly endless detailed questions about diet and exercise. No stone was left unturned. But plenty of people, including myself, were okay with all the questions. I imagine so because they ended up with 500,000 people in the study. So I'm not sure I agree with those who say the purpose of USF was to not have the survey be too long. 10 or 20 more questions, for example, wouldn't have hurt.

In some cases that may be true. But as I have just read, all medications can and often do have side effects. And multiple medications can have adverse effects long term. What I have just read is that many people have side effects and don't realize it. What I especially found interesting is that it's not uncommon for patients to report it to their doctor and the doctor then reasures them that it's not the medication that's causing their symptoms. This comes from research.

True, I used to smoke and was exposed to asbestos. Also, there's been a lot of cancer and dementia in my family. So I am at risk like everyone else. Would that be reason to live a healthy lifestyle or not? I believe it would be.

Thanks for the compliment. I think they are looking at health in general in a different way and I'll talk about that at some other time, hopefully soon. I wouldn't have time to fit that in now.

If that's the date of the last lecture they gave, I was there but have no recollection of Dr. Peterson talking about various versions. I was in another room where they had screens set up for viewing and there was a problem with it at one point. It was a distraction and might have been the reason I didn't hear all of it.

Did you, by any chance, catch the reason for the different versions? No one yet has been able to say for sure.

Maybe that will be the one for me! I'm gonna be a picky responder. :smiley: If I miss this one it won't be a big deal. I believe one less person will be what they call, "statistically insignificant".

:wave:

The reason for the different versions is they thought compliance would not be as good with a very long version. By breaking it into thirds it was felt compliance would be better. (I took part in a focus group.)

I feel left out...I never got a survey :confused:

I agree with Villages PL that the survey was lacking. I do a 75 minute workout four days a week, ride a bike 7 miles twice a week, play golf on a championship course twice a week and play softball on Saturdays. My wife does none of that and after doing our surveys her sheet wasn't much different than mine.

I just got mine in today's mail; so perhaps yours is on the way.

Strange thing though, although we are a two-person household, our package includes four surveys.

I seem to remember in another thread that someone claimed that the responses were to be mailed to TV rather than to USF Health. This does not appear to be the case. My return envelop is addressed to USF Health in Tampa.

That's true about the return envelope but the two times TV newspaper had a feature on the survey it stated you can drop your finished survey into the amenities slot at your post office.

PT .... I did my online so don't recall what was on the mailer envelope and whether it was prepaid postage or not. Sounds like they mailed yours to Atlanta so you would not be able to drop it off in person.

Here in TV, you can drop it off in special non USPS collection boxes at any mail station or at the USF office in Lake Sumter. Saves postage.

Not sure why they would have 4 copies for you ... perhaps some mixup between you and former owners of your home?

Filling in online is easy and, to me, faster than penciling in circles. Only took about 10 minutes.

I, too, received my surveys yesterday. I am a one person household and received 3 surveys. There are a total of 177 questions divided between 3 different surveys.

I THINK they send them as to how many are on the deed?

I'm sure you figured this out, but, just pick one of the three and answer it and ditch the rest. Maximum of one response per resident of a household to keep the integrity of the survey responses intact.

With all of our seasonals and rentals and constant comings and goings, it would be difficult to attain 100% of the target audience. With a sample size this large, results should be meaningful. Article in today's paper says that over 15,000 paper surveys have already been turned in locally. Not bad for less than a week. Deadline is fast approaching.

I also received extra surveys -- called the USF number and they asked me to return the unused ones in one of the return envelopes, marked EXTRAS so they would know. Leave them in the box at your mail kiosk.

Yes, but what does that mean? Does it really mean anything? What does it mean for the populaton at large? That nothing matters? That people might as well neglect their health, get sick and then take medications? And by doing so they will be as good as ever? And as good as those who are healthy because of their healthy lifestyles?

Is there any long term population study that you know of that suggests that drug taking populations do as well as non-drug taking populations? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, the Okinawa study shows that Okinawans are not only healthier, but they live longer than Americans. They don't believe in taking drugs or vitamins and we do. Good health and longevity doesn't come from taking drugs.

:wave:

Well, you could say that medical intervention, including taking medicine is causing something good to happen. We are definitely living longer and more of us are living longer than we did a hundred years ago. I respectively submit that you may be proceeding from an illogical premise.

I did not receive a survey in the mail. Stopped by the office today and picked one up. Asked why some folks got more that one survey per person, was told the surveys were sent based on the information per household, that was available. Do not know where or how that information was obtained. Didn't think it was important before I asked or after.

Set the Stage
 

I was not going to make any remarks about the survey but I am having a weka moment so will comment.
Let me set the stage:
- You are going to get a survey which you, as a respondent can be identified.
- You have no idea how it will be actually used or who will use it.
- You are going to be asked questions relating to everything from your phyusical condition, your mental condition, (even if you may be paranoid, eg.
question under #37, "Do you feel that people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance?" I think the survey speaks for itself on this one.), your drug intake/prescriptions, etc., a huge list of potential/real medical conditions, your eating habits, has anyone tried to harm you, (back to potential paranoia). your education level, age, do you own/rent?, your religious habits/how spiritual are you, insurance you may carry, depression, and many so on's..
**Now you are going to send all of this personal information off to someone who you don't know and yet can be identified to you and used anyway they see fit.
Has anyone..anyone ever been sent a survey whether not identifiable or
can identify respondent that covered the broad a series of questions? I have not and would NEVER respond to such an incrediable invasion of my privacy.
I don't overlook the fact that it could provide a great profile of The Villages.
That is not enough to support tracking on your privacy and worse yet with
no restrictions on who will have access, how it will be used and what mechanics are in place to prevent misuse.:loco:

Yes, people are living longer but in too many cases they are living longer because they are propped up by medical proceedures, drugs, feeding tubes, diapers and nursing home assistance. In too many cases the quality of their extended life is poor and nothing to brag about.

A hundred years ago there was a high infant mortality rate and that brought down the average life expectancy. My grandfather was born around 1875 and lived to age 97. I also had an ancestor who lived to 106 and he was born in 1850.
I had a great aunt who lived to 100.

And to what do you attribute their longevity?