Cargando…

External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate

BACKGROUND: Prevalence estimates from surveys with low response rates are prone to non-response bias if respondents and non-respondents differ on the outcome of interest. This study assessed the external validity of prevalence estimates of selected maternity indicators from four national maternity s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harrison, Sian, Alderdice, Fiona, Quigley, Maria A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33253308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242815
_version_ 1783616707477110784
author Harrison, Sian
Alderdice, Fiona
Quigley, Maria A.
author_facet Harrison, Sian
Alderdice, Fiona
Quigley, Maria A.
author_sort Harrison, Sian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prevalence estimates from surveys with low response rates are prone to non-response bias if respondents and non-respondents differ on the outcome of interest. This study assessed the external validity of prevalence estimates of selected maternity indicators from four national maternity surveys in England which had similar survey methodology but different response rates. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted using data from the national maternity surveys in 2006 (response rate = 63%), 2010 (response rate = 54%), 2014 (response rate = 47%) and 2018 (response rate = 29%). Unweighted and (for the 2014 and 2018 surveys) weighted survey prevalence estimates (with 95%CIs) of caesarean section, preterm birth, low birthweight and breastfeeding initiation were validated against population-based estimates from routine data. RESULTS: The external validity of the survey estimates varied across surveys and by indicator. For caesarean section, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates included the population-based estimates for all surveys. For preterm birth and low birthweight, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for the 2006 and 2010 surveys (or the 2014 survey for preterm birth). For breastfeeding initiation, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for any survey. For all indicators, the effect of weighting (on the 2014 and 2018 survey estimates) was mostly a shift towards the population-based estimates, yet the 95%CIs for the weighted survey estimates of breastfeeding initiation did not include the population-based estimates. CONCLUSION: There were no clear differences in the external validity of prevalence estimates according to survey response rate suggesting that prevalence estimates may still be valid even when survey response rates are low. The survey estimates tended to become closer to the population-based estimates when weights were applied, yet the effect was insufficient for breastfeeding initiation estimates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7703875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77038752020-12-03 External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate Harrison, Sian Alderdice, Fiona Quigley, Maria A. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Prevalence estimates from surveys with low response rates are prone to non-response bias if respondents and non-respondents differ on the outcome of interest. This study assessed the external validity of prevalence estimates of selected maternity indicators from four national maternity surveys in England which had similar survey methodology but different response rates. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted using data from the national maternity surveys in 2006 (response rate = 63%), 2010 (response rate = 54%), 2014 (response rate = 47%) and 2018 (response rate = 29%). Unweighted and (for the 2014 and 2018 surveys) weighted survey prevalence estimates (with 95%CIs) of caesarean section, preterm birth, low birthweight and breastfeeding initiation were validated against population-based estimates from routine data. RESULTS: The external validity of the survey estimates varied across surveys and by indicator. For caesarean section, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates included the population-based estimates for all surveys. For preterm birth and low birthweight, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for the 2006 and 2010 surveys (or the 2014 survey for preterm birth). For breastfeeding initiation, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for any survey. For all indicators, the effect of weighting (on the 2014 and 2018 survey estimates) was mostly a shift towards the population-based estimates, yet the 95%CIs for the weighted survey estimates of breastfeeding initiation did not include the population-based estimates. CONCLUSION: There were no clear differences in the external validity of prevalence estimates according to survey response rate suggesting that prevalence estimates may still be valid even when survey response rates are low. The survey estimates tended to become closer to the population-based estimates when weights were applied, yet the effect was insufficient for breastfeeding initiation estimates. Public Library of Science 2020-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7703875/ /pubmed/33253308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242815 Text en © 2020 Harrison et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Harrison, Sian
Alderdice, Fiona
Quigley, Maria A.
External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate
title External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate
title_full External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate
title_fullStr External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate
title_full_unstemmed External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate
title_short External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate
title_sort external validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in england: the impact of response rate
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33253308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242815
work_keys_str_mv AT harrisonsian externalvalidityofprevalenceestimatesfromthenationalmaternitysurveysinenglandtheimpactofresponserate
AT alderdicefiona externalvalidityofprevalenceestimatesfromthenationalmaternitysurveysinenglandtheimpactofresponserate
AT quigleymariaa externalvalidityofprevalenceestimatesfromthenationalmaternitysurveysinenglandtheimpactofresponserate