BACKGROUND: Respondent-driven sampling is a novel variant of link-tracing sampling for estimating the characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as HIV prevalence in sex workers. Despite its use by leading health organizations, the performance of this method in realistic situations is still largely unknown. We evaluated respondent-driven sampling by comparing estimates from a respondent-driven sampling survey with total population data. METHODS: Total population data on age, tribe, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual activity, and HIV status were available on a population of 2402 male household heads from an open cohort in rural Uganda. A respondent-driven sampling (RDS) survey was carried out in this population, using current methods of sampling (RDS sample) and statistical inference (RDS estimates). Analyses were carried out for the full RDS sample and then repeated for the first 250 recruits (small sample). RESULTS: We recruited 927 household heads. Full and small RDS samples were largely representative of the total population, but both samples underrepresented men who were younger, of higher socioeconomic status, and with unknown sexual activity and HIV status. Respondent-driven sampling statistical inference methods failed to reduce these biases. Only 31%-37% (depending on method and sample size) of RDS estimates were closer to the true population proportions than the RDS sample proportions. Only 50%-74% of respondent-driven sampling bootstrap 95% confidence intervals included the population proportion. CONCLUSIONS: Respondent-driven sampling produced a generally representative sample of this well-connected nonhidden population. However, current respondent-driven sampling inference methods failed to reduce bias when it occurred. Whether the data required to remove bias and measure precision can be collected in a respondent-driven sampling survey is unresolved. Respondent-driven sampling should be regarded as a (potentially superior) form of convenience sampling method, and caution is required when interpreting findings based on the sampling method.
BACKGROUND: Respondent-driven sampling is a novel variant of link-tracing sampling for estimating the characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as HIV prevalence in sex workers. Despite its use by leading health organizations, the performance of this method in realistic situations is still largely unknown. We evaluated respondent-driven sampling by comparing estimates from a respondent-driven sampling survey with total population data. METHODS: Total population data on age, tribe, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual activity, and HIV status were available on a population of 2402 male household heads from an open cohort in rural Uganda. A respondent-driven sampling (RDS) survey was carried out in this population, using current methods of sampling (RDS sample) and statistical inference (RDS estimates). Analyses were carried out for the full RDS sample and then repeated for the first 250 recruits (small sample). RESULTS: We recruited 927 household heads. Full and small RDS samples were largely representative of the total population, but both samples underrepresented men who were younger, of higher socioeconomic status, and with unknown sexual activity and HIV status. Respondent-driven sampling statistical inference methods failed to reduce these biases. Only 31%-37% (depending on method and sample size) of RDS estimates were closer to the true population proportions than the RDS sample proportions. Only 50%-74% of respondent-driven sampling bootstrap 95% confidence intervals included the population proportion. CONCLUSIONS: Respondent-driven sampling produced a generally representative sample of this well-connected nonhidden population. However, current respondent-driven sampling inference methods failed to reduce bias when it occurred. Whether the data required to remove bias and measure precision can be collected in a respondent-driven sampling survey is unresolved. Respondent-driven sampling should be regarded as a (potentially superior) form of convenience sampling method, and caution is required when interpreting findings based on the sampling method.
Authors: Carl Kendall; Ligia R F S Kerr; Rogerio C Gondim; Guilherme L Werneck; Raimunda Hermelinda Maia Macena; Marta Kerr Pontes; Lisa G Johnston; Keith Sabin; Willi McFarland Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2008-04-04
Authors: William T Robinson; Jan M H Risser; Shanell McGoy; Adam B Becker; Hafeez Rehman; Mary Jefferson; Vivian Griffin; Marcia Wolverton; Stephanie Tortu Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Lucy Platt; Martin Wall; Tim Rhodes; Ali Judd; Matthew Hickman; Lisa G Johnston; Adrian Renton; Natalia Bobrova; Anya Sarang Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Alexander R Bazazi; Forrest Crawford; Alexei Zelenev; Robert Heimer; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Frederick L Altice Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2015-12
Authors: Huong Thi Duong; Don Des Jarlais; Oanh Hai Thi Khuat; Kamyar Arasteh; Jonathan Feelemyer; Pham Minh Khue; Hoang Thi Giang; Didier Laureillard; Vinh Vu Hai; Roselyne Vallo; Laurent Michel; Jean Pierre Moles; Nicolas Nagot Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2018-07
Authors: Suzan M Walters; Bethany Coston; Alan Neaigus; Alexis V Rivera; Lila Starbuck; Valentina Ramirez; Kathleen H Reilly; Sarah L Braunstein Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2020-02-21