Cargando…
Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling
BACKGROUND: In using regularly collected or existing surveillance data to characterize engagement in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services among marginalized populations, differences in sampling methods may produce different pictures of the target population and may therefore result in differe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JMIR Publications
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5670312/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29054832 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.8116 |
_version_ | 1783275998484103168 |
---|---|
author | Rao, Amrita Stahlman, Shauna Hargreaves, James Weir, Sharon Edwards, Jessie Rice, Brian Kochelani, Duncan Mavimbela, Mpumelelo Baral, Stefan |
author_facet | Rao, Amrita Stahlman, Shauna Hargreaves, James Weir, Sharon Edwards, Jessie Rice, Brian Kochelani, Duncan Mavimbela, Mpumelelo Baral, Stefan |
author_sort | Rao, Amrita |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In using regularly collected or existing surveillance data to characterize engagement in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services among marginalized populations, differences in sampling methods may produce different pictures of the target population and may therefore result in different priorities for response. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to use existing data to evaluate the sample distribution of eight studies of female sex workers (FSW) and men who have sex with men (MSM), who were recruited using different sampling approaches in two locations within Sub-Saharan Africa: Manzini, Swaziland and Yaoundé, Cameroon. METHODS: MSM and FSW participants were recruited using either respondent-driven sampling (RDS) or venue-based snowball sampling. Recruitment took place between 2011 and 2016. Participants at each study site were administered a face-to-face survey to assess sociodemographics, along with the prevalence of self-reported HIV status, frequency of HIV testing, stigma, and other HIV-related characteristics. Crude and RDS-adjusted prevalence estimates were calculated. Crude prevalence estimates from the venue-based snowball samples were compared with the overlap of the RDS-adjusted prevalence estimates, between both FSW and MSM in Cameroon and Swaziland. RESULTS: RDS samples tended to be younger (MSM aged 18-21 years in Swaziland: 47.6% [139/310] in RDS vs 24.3% [42/173] in Snowball, in Cameroon: 47.9% [99/306] in RDS vs 20.1% [52/259] in Snowball; FSW aged 18-21 years in Swaziland 42.5% [82/325] in RDS vs 8.0% [20/249] in Snowball; in Cameroon 15.6% [75/576] in RDS vs 8.1% [25/306] in Snowball). They were less educated (MSM: primary school completed or less in Swaziland 42.6% [109/310] in RDS vs 4.0% [7/173] in Snowball, in Cameroon 46.2% [138/306] in RDS vs 14.3% [37/259] in Snowball; FSW: primary school completed or less in Swaziland 86.6% [281/325] in RDS vs 23.9% [59/247] in Snowball, in Cameroon 87.4% [520/576] in RDS vs 77.5% [238/307] in Snowball) than the snowball samples. In addition, RDS samples indicated lower exposure to HIV prevention information, less knowledge about HIV prevention, limited access to HIV prevention tools such as condoms, and less-reported frequency of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV testing as compared with the venue-based samples. Findings pertaining to the level of disclosure of sexual practices and sexual practice–related stigma were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Samples generated by RDS and venue-based snowball sampling produced significantly different prevalence estimates of several important characteristics. These findings are tempered by limitations to the application of both approaches in practice. Ultimately, these findings provide further context for understanding existing surveillance data and how differences in methods of sampling can influence both the type of individuals captured and whether or not these individuals are representative of the larger target population. These data highlight the need to consider how program coverage estimates of marginalized populations are determined when characterizing the level of unmet need. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5670312 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | JMIR Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56703122017-11-30 Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling Rao, Amrita Stahlman, Shauna Hargreaves, James Weir, Sharon Edwards, Jessie Rice, Brian Kochelani, Duncan Mavimbela, Mpumelelo Baral, Stefan JMIR Public Health Surveill Original Paper BACKGROUND: In using regularly collected or existing surveillance data to characterize engagement in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services among marginalized populations, differences in sampling methods may produce different pictures of the target population and may therefore result in different priorities for response. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to use existing data to evaluate the sample distribution of eight studies of female sex workers (FSW) and men who have sex with men (MSM), who were recruited using different sampling approaches in two locations within Sub-Saharan Africa: Manzini, Swaziland and Yaoundé, Cameroon. METHODS: MSM and FSW participants were recruited using either respondent-driven sampling (RDS) or venue-based snowball sampling. Recruitment took place between 2011 and 2016. Participants at each study site were administered a face-to-face survey to assess sociodemographics, along with the prevalence of self-reported HIV status, frequency of HIV testing, stigma, and other HIV-related characteristics. Crude and RDS-adjusted prevalence estimates were calculated. Crude prevalence estimates from the venue-based snowball samples were compared with the overlap of the RDS-adjusted prevalence estimates, between both FSW and MSM in Cameroon and Swaziland. RESULTS: RDS samples tended to be younger (MSM aged 18-21 years in Swaziland: 47.6% [139/310] in RDS vs 24.3% [42/173] in Snowball, in Cameroon: 47.9% [99/306] in RDS vs 20.1% [52/259] in Snowball; FSW aged 18-21 years in Swaziland 42.5% [82/325] in RDS vs 8.0% [20/249] in Snowball; in Cameroon 15.6% [75/576] in RDS vs 8.1% [25/306] in Snowball). They were less educated (MSM: primary school completed or less in Swaziland 42.6% [109/310] in RDS vs 4.0% [7/173] in Snowball, in Cameroon 46.2% [138/306] in RDS vs 14.3% [37/259] in Snowball; FSW: primary school completed or less in Swaziland 86.6% [281/325] in RDS vs 23.9% [59/247] in Snowball, in Cameroon 87.4% [520/576] in RDS vs 77.5% [238/307] in Snowball) than the snowball samples. In addition, RDS samples indicated lower exposure to HIV prevention information, less knowledge about HIV prevention, limited access to HIV prevention tools such as condoms, and less-reported frequency of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV testing as compared with the venue-based samples. Findings pertaining to the level of disclosure of sexual practices and sexual practice–related stigma were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Samples generated by RDS and venue-based snowball sampling produced significantly different prevalence estimates of several important characteristics. These findings are tempered by limitations to the application of both approaches in practice. Ultimately, these findings provide further context for understanding existing surveillance data and how differences in methods of sampling can influence both the type of individuals captured and whether or not these individuals are representative of the larger target population. These data highlight the need to consider how program coverage estimates of marginalized populations are determined when characterizing the level of unmet need. JMIR Publications 2017-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5670312/ /pubmed/29054832 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.8116 Text en ©Amrita Rao, Shauna Stahlman, James Hargreaves, Sharon Weir, Jessie Edwards, Brian Rice, Duncan Kochelani, Mpumelelo Mavimbela, Stefan Baral. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 20.10.2017. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Rao, Amrita Stahlman, Shauna Hargreaves, James Weir, Sharon Edwards, Jessie Rice, Brian Kochelani, Duncan Mavimbela, Mpumelelo Baral, Stefan Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling |
title | Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling |
title_full | Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling |
title_fullStr | Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling |
title_full_unstemmed | Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling |
title_short | Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling |
title_sort | sampling key populations for hiv surveillance: results from eight cross-sectional studies using respondent-driven sampling and venue-based snowball sampling |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5670312/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29054832 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.8116 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT raoamrita samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT stahlmanshauna samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT hargreavesjames samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT weirsharon samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT edwardsjessie samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT ricebrian samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT kochelaniduncan samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT mavimbelampumelelo samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling AT baralstefan samplingkeypopulationsforhivsurveillanceresultsfromeightcrosssectionalstudiesusingrespondentdrivensamplingandvenuebasedsnowballsampling |