Literature DB >> 1836811

Investigating non-response bias in a survey of disablement in the community: implications for survey methodology.

A Tennant1, E M Badley.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the pattern of age specific non-response bias in a two phase survey of disablement in the community. It seeks to examine patterns of response in different age groups to a household based postal questionnaire, and the implication of such trends for the estimation of prevalence of reported dependence. It also looks at the effect that the readiness to respond during the first phase postal questionnaire had on participation in the interview based second phase of the study. DESIGN AND
SETTING: A two stage survey of disablement in the population was undertaken. A first phase postal questionnaire was sent to 25,168 households in Calderdale, West Yorkshire, England, to ascertain the prevalence of physical disability. The second phase comprised in depth interviews with a sample of individuals identified in the first phase as being disabled. RESPONDENTS: A total of 21,889 postal questionnaires were returned (87%) representing households containing 42,826 people aged 16 years and over. A disproportionately stratified random sample of 950 respondents reporting disability was taken for the second phase. Of these 891 were still available, and 838 (94%) were interviewed.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A study of the timing of response to a postal questionnaire showed that patterns differed for different age groups. The estimated prevalence of those aged 65 years and over who were dependent was steady over time whereas for those in the 16-64 age range the estimated prevalence fell as the survey progressed, indicating a tendency for those who were dependent to respond sooner. Examination of the relationship of responses at phase 1 and phase 2 showed that response to invitation to interview was much less in those who had responded later, and presumably more reluctantly, in the first phase.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings raise questions about how different patterns of response might be indicative of bias which could differentially affect final age specific prevalence estimates. They also have methodological implications for the follow up of reluctant responders both to increase the response rate and to secure cooperation in the second phase of a two phase survey.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1836811      PMCID: PMC1060767          DOI: 10.1136/jech.45.3.247

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  2 in total

1.  Estimating the prevalence of disability in the community: the influence of sample design and response bias.

Authors:  D Locker; R Wiggins; Y Sittampalam; D L Patrick
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Aplastic anaemia: a disorder of the bone-marrow sinusoidal microcirculation rather than stem-cell failure?

Authors:  W H Knospe; W H Crosby
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1971-01-02       Impact factor: 79.321

  2 in total
  13 in total

1.  Validation of a home safety questionnaire used in a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  M Watson; D Kendrick; C Coupland
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.399

2.  Prevalence of self reported stroke in a population in northern England.

Authors:  J M Geddes; J Fear; A Tennant; A Pickering; M Hillman; M A Chamberlain
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys.

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; Brian E Clauser; Terry Field; Robert A Yood; Jerry H Gurwitz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Total and cause specific mortality among participants and non-participants of population based health surveys: a comprehensive follow up of 54 372 Finnish men and women.

Authors:  Pekka Jousilahti; Veikko Salomaa; Kari Kuulasmaa; Matti Niemelä; Erkki Vartiainen
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Do safety practices differ between responders and non-responders to a safety questionnaire?

Authors:  D Kendrick; R Hapgood; P Marsh
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.399

6.  Repeated attempts using different strategies are important for timely contact with study participants.

Authors:  Kuan-Fu Chen; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Faisal Siddiqi; Victor D Dinglas; Kristin A Sepulveda; Eddy Fan; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Comparison of participants and non-participants to the ORISCAV-LUX population-based study on cardiovascular risk factors in Luxembourg.

Authors:  Ala'a Alkerwi; Nicolas Sauvageot; Sophie Couffignal; Adelin Albert; Marie-Lise Lair; Michèle Guillaume
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Engaging families in health services research on childhood visual impairment: barriers to, and degree and nature of bias in, participation.

Authors:  J S Rahi; I Manaras; H Tuomainen; G Lewando Hundt
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Damp housing and adult health: results from a lifestyle study in Worcester, England.

Authors:  C N Packer; S Stewart-Brown; S E Fowle
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Recruiting women for a study on perceived risk of cancer: influence of survey topic salience and early versus late response.

Authors:  Steven Leadbetter; Nikki A Hawkins; Lawrence E Scholl; Frances A McCarty; Juan L Rodriguez; Naomi Freedner-Maguire; Sharon Hensley Alford; Cecelia A Bellcross; Lucy A Peipins
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 2.830

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.