Cargando…

Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of missing and inconsistent data on a weight management mail survey results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Weight management surveys were sent to 5000 overweight and obese individuals in the Learning Health System Network. Survey information was collected between October...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Novotny, Paul J., Schroeder, Darrell, Sloan, Jeff A., Mazza, Gina L., Williams, David, Bradley, David, Haller, Irina V., Bradley, Steven M., Croghan, Ivana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33718787
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.09.006
_version_ 1783660172592283648
author Novotny, Paul J.
Schroeder, Darrell
Sloan, Jeff A.
Mazza, Gina L.
Williams, David
Bradley, David
Haller, Irina V.
Bradley, Steven M.
Croghan, Ivana
author_facet Novotny, Paul J.
Schroeder, Darrell
Sloan, Jeff A.
Mazza, Gina L.
Williams, David
Bradley, David
Haller, Irina V.
Bradley, Steven M.
Croghan, Ivana
author_sort Novotny, Paul J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of missing and inconsistent data on a weight management mail survey results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Weight management surveys were sent to 5000 overweight and obese individuals in the Learning Health System Network. Survey information was collected between October 27, 2017, and March 1, 2018. Some participants reported body mass index (BMI) values inconsistent with the intended overweight and obese sampling cohort. Analyses were performed after excluding these surveys and also performed again after setting these low BMI values to missing. Models were run after imputing missing values using expectation-maximization, Markov chain Monte Carlo, random forest imputation, multivariate imputation by chained equations, and multiple imputation and replacing missing BMI values with the minimum, maximum, mean, or median of the known BMI values. RESULTS: Of 2799 surveys, 222 (8%) had missing BMI values and 155 (6%) reported invalid BMI values. Overall, 725 of these 2799 surveys (26%) were missing at least 1 variable that was essential to the main analyses. Different imputation methods consistently found that BMI was related to age, sex, race, marital status, and education. Patients with a BMI of 35.0 kg/m(2) or greater were more likely to feel judged because of their weight, and patients with a BMI of 40.0 kg/m(2) or greater were more likely to feel they were not always treated with respect and treated as an equal. CONCLUSION: Analyses using different imputation methods were consistent with the original published results. Missing data likely did not affect the study results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7930870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79308702021-03-12 Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey? Novotny, Paul J. Schroeder, Darrell Sloan, Jeff A. Mazza, Gina L. Williams, David Bradley, David Haller, Irina V. Bradley, Steven M. Croghan, Ivana Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Original Article OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of missing and inconsistent data on a weight management mail survey results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Weight management surveys were sent to 5000 overweight and obese individuals in the Learning Health System Network. Survey information was collected between October 27, 2017, and March 1, 2018. Some participants reported body mass index (BMI) values inconsistent with the intended overweight and obese sampling cohort. Analyses were performed after excluding these surveys and also performed again after setting these low BMI values to missing. Models were run after imputing missing values using expectation-maximization, Markov chain Monte Carlo, random forest imputation, multivariate imputation by chained equations, and multiple imputation and replacing missing BMI values with the minimum, maximum, mean, or median of the known BMI values. RESULTS: Of 2799 surveys, 222 (8%) had missing BMI values and 155 (6%) reported invalid BMI values. Overall, 725 of these 2799 surveys (26%) were missing at least 1 variable that was essential to the main analyses. Different imputation methods consistently found that BMI was related to age, sex, race, marital status, and education. Patients with a BMI of 35.0 kg/m(2) or greater were more likely to feel judged because of their weight, and patients with a BMI of 40.0 kg/m(2) or greater were more likely to feel they were not always treated with respect and treated as an equal. CONCLUSION: Analyses using different imputation methods were consistent with the original published results. Missing data likely did not affect the study results. Elsevier 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7930870/ /pubmed/33718787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.09.006 Text en © 2020 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Novotny, Paul J.
Schroeder, Darrell
Sloan, Jeff A.
Mazza, Gina L.
Williams, David
Bradley, David
Haller, Irina V.
Bradley, Steven M.
Croghan, Ivana
Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?
title Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?
title_full Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?
title_fullStr Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?
title_full_unstemmed Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?
title_short Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?
title_sort do missing values influence outcomes in a cross-sectional mail survey?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33718787
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.09.006
work_keys_str_mv AT novotnypaulj domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT schroederdarrell domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT sloanjeffa domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT mazzaginal domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT williamsdavid domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT bradleydavid domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT halleririnav domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT bradleystevenm domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey
AT croghanivana domissingvaluesinfluenceoutcomesinacrosssectionalmailsurvey