Cargando…
Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection
BACKGROUND: A ubiquitous issue in research is that of selecting a representative sample from the study population. While random sampling strategies are the gold standard, in practice, random sampling of participants is not always feasible nor necessarily the optimal choice. In our case, a selection...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4619525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26497748 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0089-8 |
_version_ | 1782397122839052288 |
---|---|
author | van Hoeven, Loan R. Janssen, Mart P. Roes, Kit C. B. Koffijberg, Hendrik |
author_facet | van Hoeven, Loan R. Janssen, Mart P. Roes, Kit C. B. Koffijberg, Hendrik |
author_sort | van Hoeven, Loan R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A ubiquitous issue in research is that of selecting a representative sample from the study population. While random sampling strategies are the gold standard, in practice, random sampling of participants is not always feasible nor necessarily the optimal choice. In our case, a selection must be made of 12 hospitals (out of 89 Dutch hospitals in total). With this selection of 12 hospitals, it should be possible to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals as well. In this paper, we evaluate both random and purposive strategies for the case of estimating blood use in Dutch hospitals. METHODS: Available population-wide data on hospital blood use and number of hospital beds are used to simulate five sampling strategies: (1) select only the largest hospitals, (2) select the largest and the smallest hospitals (‘maximum variation’), (3) select hospitals randomly, (4) select hospitals from as many different geographic regions as possible, (5) select hospitals from only two regions. Simulations of each strategy result in different selections of hospitals, that are each used to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals. The estimates are compared to the actual population values; the subsequent prediction errors are used to indicate the quality of the sampling strategy. RESULTS: The strategy leading to the lowest prediction error in the case study was maximum variation sampling, followed by random, regional variation and two-region sampling, with sampling the largest hospitals resulting in the worst performance. Maximum variation sampling led to a hospital level prediction error of 15 %, whereas random sampling led to a prediction error of 19 % (95 % CI 17 %-26 %). While lowering the sample size reduced the differences between maximum variation and the random strategies, increasing sample size to n = 18 did not change the ranking of the strategies and led to only slightly better predictions. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal strategy for estimating blood use was maximum variation sampling. When proxy data are available, it is possible to evaluate random and purposive sampling strategies using simulations before the start of the study. The results enable researchers to make a more educated choice of an appropriate sampling strategy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0089-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4619525 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46195252015-10-26 Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection van Hoeven, Loan R. Janssen, Mart P. Roes, Kit C. B. Koffijberg, Hendrik BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: A ubiquitous issue in research is that of selecting a representative sample from the study population. While random sampling strategies are the gold standard, in practice, random sampling of participants is not always feasible nor necessarily the optimal choice. In our case, a selection must be made of 12 hospitals (out of 89 Dutch hospitals in total). With this selection of 12 hospitals, it should be possible to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals as well. In this paper, we evaluate both random and purposive strategies for the case of estimating blood use in Dutch hospitals. METHODS: Available population-wide data on hospital blood use and number of hospital beds are used to simulate five sampling strategies: (1) select only the largest hospitals, (2) select the largest and the smallest hospitals (‘maximum variation’), (3) select hospitals randomly, (4) select hospitals from as many different geographic regions as possible, (5) select hospitals from only two regions. Simulations of each strategy result in different selections of hospitals, that are each used to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals. The estimates are compared to the actual population values; the subsequent prediction errors are used to indicate the quality of the sampling strategy. RESULTS: The strategy leading to the lowest prediction error in the case study was maximum variation sampling, followed by random, regional variation and two-region sampling, with sampling the largest hospitals resulting in the worst performance. Maximum variation sampling led to a hospital level prediction error of 15 %, whereas random sampling led to a prediction error of 19 % (95 % CI 17 %-26 %). While lowering the sample size reduced the differences between maximum variation and the random strategies, increasing sample size to n = 18 did not change the ranking of the strategies and led to only slightly better predictions. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal strategy for estimating blood use was maximum variation sampling. When proxy data are available, it is possible to evaluate random and purposive sampling strategies using simulations before the start of the study. The results enable researchers to make a more educated choice of an appropriate sampling strategy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0089-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4619525/ /pubmed/26497748 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0089-8 Text en © van Hoeven et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article van Hoeven, Loan R. Janssen, Mart P. Roes, Kit C. B. Koffijberg, Hendrik Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection |
title | Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection |
title_full | Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection |
title_fullStr | Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection |
title_full_unstemmed | Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection |
title_short | Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection |
title_sort | aiming for a representative sample: simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4619525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26497748 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0089-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanhoevenloanr aimingforarepresentativesamplesimulatingrandomversuspurposivestrategiesforhospitalselection AT janssenmartp aimingforarepresentativesamplesimulatingrandomversuspurposivestrategiesforhospitalselection AT roeskitcb aimingforarepresentativesamplesimulatingrandomversuspurposivestrategiesforhospitalselection AT koffijberghendrik aimingforarepresentativesamplesimulatingrandomversuspurposivestrategiesforhospitalselection |