BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study demonstrates the impact of survey nonresponse bias on conclusions from a mammography trial targeting a disadvantaged population. METHODS: The trial randomized 1558 women to threeinterventions designed to promote repeat mammography: mailed reminder (minimum group); mailed thank-you card, patient newsletters, and reminder (maximum group); and no mailings (control group). The primary outcome, repeat mammogram within 15 months, was assessed from administrative and phone survey data. RESULTS: Administrative estimates revealed a statistically significant difference of 7% between the maximum and control groups on the primary outcome. Survey estimates (response rate 80%) revealed no significant differences. The differences by data source were traced to a survey nonresponse bias. There was a statistically significant difference of 16% between the maximum and control groups among survey nonrespondents for the primary outcome, but there were no differences among survey respondents. CONCLUSION: The findings reiterate that even a low survey nonresponse rate can bias study conclusions and suggest studies targeting disadvantaged populations should avoid relying solely on survey data for outcome analyses.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study demonstrates the impact of survey nonresponse bias on conclusions from a mammography trial targeting a disadvantaged population. METHODS: The trial randomized 1558 women to three interventions designed to promote repeat mammography: mailed reminder (minimum group); mailed thank-you card, patient newsletters, and reminder (maximum group); and no mailings (control group). The primary outcome, repeat mammogram within 15 months, was assessed from administrative and phone survey data. RESULTS: Administrative estimates revealed a statistically significant difference of 7% between the maximum and control groups on the primary outcome. Survey estimates (response rate 80%) revealed no significant differences. The differences by data source were traced to a survey nonresponse bias. There was a statistically significant difference of 16% between the maximum and control groups among survey nonrespondents for the primary outcome, but there were no differences among survey respondents. CONCLUSION: The findings reiterate that even a low survey nonresponse rate can bias study conclusions and suggest studies targeting disadvantaged populations should avoid relying solely on survey data for outcome analyses.
Authors: Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Shawna V Hudson; Eric K Shaw; Jesse C Crosson; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Maureen Murdoch; Melissa A Polusny; Amy Street; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Alisha B Simon; Ann Bangerter; Joseph Grill; Emily Voller Journal: Mil Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Deborah J del Junco; Jasmin A Tiro; Sharon P Coan; Catherine A Perz; Lori A Bastian; William Rakowski; Wen Chan; David R Lairson; Amy McQueen; Maria E Fernandez; Cynthia Warrick; Arada Halder; Carlo DiClemente Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joan M Griffin; Alisha Baines Simon; Erin Hulbert; John Stevenson; Joseph P Grill; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Melissa R Partin Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Jessica T DeFrank; J Michael Bowling; Barbara K Rimer; Jennifer M Gierisch; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 2.830