Cargando…

Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?

OBJECTIVES: Conducting health surveys with community-based random samples are essential to capture an otherwise unreachable population, but these surveys can be biased if the effort to reach participants is insufficient. This study determines the desirable amount of effort to minimise such bias. DES...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Messiah, Antoine, Castro, Grettel, Rodríguez de la Vega, Pura, Acuna, Juan M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25510887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005791
_version_ 1782349097096708096
author Messiah, Antoine
Castro, Grettel
Rodríguez de la Vega, Pura
Acuna, Juan M
author_facet Messiah, Antoine
Castro, Grettel
Rodríguez de la Vega, Pura
Acuna, Juan M
author_sort Messiah, Antoine
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Conducting health surveys with community-based random samples are essential to capture an otherwise unreachable population, but these surveys can be biased if the effort to reach participants is insufficient. This study determines the desirable amount of effort to minimise such bias. DESIGN: A household-based health survey with random sampling and face-to-face interviews. Up to 11 visits, organised by canvassing rounds, were made to obtain an interview. SETTING: Single-family homes in an underserved and understudied population in North Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Of a probabilistic sample of 2200 household addresses, 30 corresponded to empty lots, 74 were abandoned houses, 625 households declined to participate and 265 could not be reached and interviewed within 11 attempts. Analyses were performed on the 1206 remaining households. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Each household was asked if any of their members had been told by a doctor that they had high blood pressure, heart disease including heart attack, cancer, diabetes, anxiety/ depression, obesity or asthma. Responses to these questions were analysed by the number of visit attempts needed to obtain the interview. RESULTS: Return per visit fell below 10% after four attempts, below 5% after six attempts and below 2% after eight attempts. As the effort increased, household size decreased, while household income and the percentage of interviewees active and employed increased; proportion of the seven health conditions decreased, four of which did so significantly: heart disease 20.4–9.2%, high blood pressure 63.5–58.1%, anxiety/depression 24.4–9.2% and obesity 21.8–12.6%. Beyond the fifth attempt, however, cumulative percentages varied by less than 1% and precision varied by less than 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the early and steep drop, sustaining at least five attempts to reach participants is necessary to reduce selection bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4267081
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42670812014-12-18 Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter? Messiah, Antoine Castro, Grettel Rodríguez de la Vega, Pura Acuna, Juan M BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: Conducting health surveys with community-based random samples are essential to capture an otherwise unreachable population, but these surveys can be biased if the effort to reach participants is insufficient. This study determines the desirable amount of effort to minimise such bias. DESIGN: A household-based health survey with random sampling and face-to-face interviews. Up to 11 visits, organised by canvassing rounds, were made to obtain an interview. SETTING: Single-family homes in an underserved and understudied population in North Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Of a probabilistic sample of 2200 household addresses, 30 corresponded to empty lots, 74 were abandoned houses, 625 households declined to participate and 265 could not be reached and interviewed within 11 attempts. Analyses were performed on the 1206 remaining households. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Each household was asked if any of their members had been told by a doctor that they had high blood pressure, heart disease including heart attack, cancer, diabetes, anxiety/ depression, obesity or asthma. Responses to these questions were analysed by the number of visit attempts needed to obtain the interview. RESULTS: Return per visit fell below 10% after four attempts, below 5% after six attempts and below 2% after eight attempts. As the effort increased, household size decreased, while household income and the percentage of interviewees active and employed increased; proportion of the seven health conditions decreased, four of which did so significantly: heart disease 20.4–9.2%, high blood pressure 63.5–58.1%, anxiety/depression 24.4–9.2% and obesity 21.8–12.6%. Beyond the fifth attempt, however, cumulative percentages varied by less than 1% and precision varied by less than 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the early and steep drop, sustaining at least five attempts to reach participants is necessary to reduce selection bias. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4267081/ /pubmed/25510887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005791 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Public Health
Messiah, Antoine
Castro, Grettel
Rodríguez de la Vega, Pura
Acuna, Juan M
Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
title Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
title_full Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
title_fullStr Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
title_full_unstemmed Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
title_short Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
title_sort random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25510887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005791
work_keys_str_mv AT messiahantoine randomsamplecommunitybasedhealthsurveysdoestheefforttoreachparticipantsmatter
AT castrogrettel randomsamplecommunitybasedhealthsurveysdoestheefforttoreachparticipantsmatter
AT rodriguezdelavegapura randomsamplecommunitybasedhealthsurveysdoestheefforttoreachparticipantsmatter
AT acunajuanm randomsamplecommunitybasedhealthsurveysdoestheefforttoreachparticipantsmatter