Cargando…
Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2
Nonresponse bias occurs when participants in a study differ from eligible nonparticipants in ways that can distort study conclusions. The current study uses successive wave analysis, an established but underutilized approach, to assess nonresponse bias in a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study. S...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9112951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35149658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001508 |
_version_ | 1784709499333902336 |
---|---|
author | Duszynski, Thomas J. Fadel, William Dixon, Brian E. Yiannoutsos, Constantin Halverson, Paul K. Menachemi, Nir |
author_facet | Duszynski, Thomas J. Fadel, William Dixon, Brian E. Yiannoutsos, Constantin Halverson, Paul K. Menachemi, Nir |
author_sort | Duszynski, Thomas J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Nonresponse bias occurs when participants in a study differ from eligible nonparticipants in ways that can distort study conclusions. The current study uses successive wave analysis, an established but underutilized approach, to assess nonresponse bias in a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study. Such an approach makes use of reminders to induce participation among individuals. Based on the response continuum theory, those requiring several reminders to participate are more like nonrespondents than those who participate in a study upon first invitation, thus allowing for an examination of factors affecting participation. METHODS: Study participants from the Indiana Population Prevalence SARS-CoV-2 Study were divided into 3 groups (eg, waves) based upon the number of reminders that were needed to induce participation. Independent variables were then used to determine whether key demographic characteristics as well as other variables hypothesized to influence study participation differed by wave using chi-square analyses. Specifically, we examined whether race, age, gender, education level, health status, tobacco behaviors, COVID-19–related symptoms, reasons for participating in the study, and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates differed by wave. RESULTS: Respondents included 3658 individuals, including 1495 in wave 1 (40.9%), 1246 in wave 2 (34.1%), and 917 in wave 3 (25%), for an overall participation rate of 23.6%. No significant differences in any examined variables were observed across waves, suggesting similar characteristics among those needing additional reminders compared with early participants. CONCLUSIONS: Using established techniques, we found no evidence of nonresponse bias in a random sample with a relatively low response rate. A hypothetical additional wave of participants would be unlikely to change original study conclusions. Successive wave analysis is an effective and easy tool that can allow public health researchers to assess, and possibly adjust for, nonresponse in any epidemiological survey that uses reminders to encourage participation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9112951 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91129512022-05-18 Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2 Duszynski, Thomas J. Fadel, William Dixon, Brian E. Yiannoutsos, Constantin Halverson, Paul K. Menachemi, Nir J Public Health Manag Pract Research Reports Nonresponse bias occurs when participants in a study differ from eligible nonparticipants in ways that can distort study conclusions. The current study uses successive wave analysis, an established but underutilized approach, to assess nonresponse bias in a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study. Such an approach makes use of reminders to induce participation among individuals. Based on the response continuum theory, those requiring several reminders to participate are more like nonrespondents than those who participate in a study upon first invitation, thus allowing for an examination of factors affecting participation. METHODS: Study participants from the Indiana Population Prevalence SARS-CoV-2 Study were divided into 3 groups (eg, waves) based upon the number of reminders that were needed to induce participation. Independent variables were then used to determine whether key demographic characteristics as well as other variables hypothesized to influence study participation differed by wave using chi-square analyses. Specifically, we examined whether race, age, gender, education level, health status, tobacco behaviors, COVID-19–related symptoms, reasons for participating in the study, and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates differed by wave. RESULTS: Respondents included 3658 individuals, including 1495 in wave 1 (40.9%), 1246 in wave 2 (34.1%), and 917 in wave 3 (25%), for an overall participation rate of 23.6%. No significant differences in any examined variables were observed across waves, suggesting similar characteristics among those needing additional reminders compared with early participants. CONCLUSIONS: Using established techniques, we found no evidence of nonresponse bias in a random sample with a relatively low response rate. A hypothetical additional wave of participants would be unlikely to change original study conclusions. Successive wave analysis is an effective and easy tool that can allow public health researchers to assess, and possibly adjust for, nonresponse in any epidemiological survey that uses reminders to encourage participation. Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2022 2022-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9112951/ /pubmed/35149658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001508 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections. |
spellingShingle | Research Reports Duszynski, Thomas J. Fadel, William Dixon, Brian E. Yiannoutsos, Constantin Halverson, Paul K. Menachemi, Nir Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2 |
title | Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full | Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2 |
title_fullStr | Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full_unstemmed | Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2 |
title_short | Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2 |
title_sort | successive wave analysis to assess nonresponse bias in a statewide random sample testing study for sars-cov-2 |
topic | Research Reports |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9112951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35149658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001508 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT duszynskithomasj successivewaveanalysistoassessnonresponsebiasinastatewiderandomsampletestingstudyforsarscov2 AT fadelwilliam successivewaveanalysistoassessnonresponsebiasinastatewiderandomsampletestingstudyforsarscov2 AT dixonbriane successivewaveanalysistoassessnonresponsebiasinastatewiderandomsampletestingstudyforsarscov2 AT yiannoutsosconstantin successivewaveanalysistoassessnonresponsebiasinastatewiderandomsampletestingstudyforsarscov2 AT halversonpaulk successivewaveanalysistoassessnonresponsebiasinastatewiderandomsampletestingstudyforsarscov2 AT menacheminir successivewaveanalysistoassessnonresponsebiasinastatewiderandomsampletestingstudyforsarscov2 |