Population Size Estimations Among Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling Surveys: Case Studies From Armenia

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the sizes of hidden populations, including female sex workers (FSW), men who have sex with men (MSM), and people who inject drugs (PWID), are essential for understanding the magnitude of vulnerabilities, health care needs, risk behaviors, and HIV and other infections. OBJECTIVE: This article advances the successive sampling-population size estimation (SS-PSE) method by examining the performance of a modification allowing visibility to be jointly modeled with population size in the context of 15 datasets. Datasets are from respondent-driven sampling (RDS) surveys of FSW, MSM, and PWID from three cities in Armenia. We compare and evaluate the accuracy of our imputed visibility population size estimates to those found for the same populations through other unpublished methods. We then suggest questions that are useful for eliciting information needed to compute SS-PSE and provide guidelines and caveats to improve the implementation of SS-PSE for real data. METHODS: SS-PSE approximates the RDS sampling mechanism via the successive sampling model and uses the order of selection of the sample to provide information on the distribution of network sizes over the population members. We incorporate visibility imputation, a measure of a person’s propensity to participate in the study, given that inclusion probabilities for RDS are unknown and social network sizes, often used as a proxy for inclusion probability, are subject to measurement errors from self-reported study data. RESULTS: FSW in Yerevan (2012, 2016) and Vanadzor (2016) as well as PWID in Yerevan (2014), Gyumri (2016), and Vanadzor (2016) had great fits with prior estimations. The MSM populations in all three cities had inconsistencies with expert prior values. The maximum low prior value was larger than the minimum high prior value, making a great fit impossible. One possible explanation is the inclusion of transgender individuals in the MSM populations during these studies. There could be differences between what experts perceive as the size of the population, based on who is an eligible member of that population, and what members of the population perceive. There could also be inconsistencies among different study participants, as some may include transgender individuals in their accounting of personal network size, while others may not. Because of these difficulties, the transgender population was split apart from the MSM population for the 2018 study. CONCLUSIONS: Prior estimations from expert opinions may not always be accurate. RDS surveys should be assessed to ensure that they have met all of the assumptions, that variables have reached convergence, and that the network structure of the population does not have bottlenecks. We recommend that SS-PSE be used in conjunction with other population size estimations commonly used in RDS, as well as results of other years of SS-PSE, to ensure generation of the most accurate size estimation.