OBJECTIVES: Attrition in cohort studies can cause the data to be nonreflective of the original population. Although of little concern if intragroup comparisons are being made or cause and effect assessed, the assessment of bias was undertaken in this study so that intergroup or descriptive analyses could be undertaken. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The North West Adelaide Health Study is a chronic disease and risk factor cohort study undertaken in Adelaide, South Australia. In the original wave (1999), clinical and self-report data were collected from 4,056 adults. In the third wave (2008-2010), 2,710 adults were still actively involved. Comparisons were made against two other data sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics Estimated Residential Population and a regular conducted chronic disease and risk factor surveillance system. RESULTS: Comparisons of demographics (age, sex, area, education, work status, and income) proved to be statistically significantly different. In addition, smoking status, body mass index, and general health status were statistically significant from the comparison group. No statistically significant differences were found for alcohol risk. CONCLUSION: Although the third wave of this cohort study is not representative of the broader population on the variables assessed, weighting of the data and analytical approaches can account for differences.
OBJECTIVES: Attrition in cohort studies can cause the data to be nonreflective of the original population. Although of little concern if intragroup comparisons are being made or cause and effect assessed, the assessment of bias was undertaken in this study so that intergroup or descriptive analyses could be undertaken. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The North West Adelaide Health Study is a chronic disease and risk factor cohort study undertaken in Adelaide, South Australia. In the original wave (1999), clinical and self-report data were collected from 4,056 adults. In the third wave (2008-2010), 2,710 adults were still actively involved. Comparisons were made against two other data sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics Estimated Residential Population and a regular conducted chronic disease and risk factor surveillance system. RESULTS: Comparisons of demographics (age, sex, area, education, work status, and income) proved to be statistically significantly different. In addition, smoking status, body mass index, and general health status were statistically significant from the comparison group. No statistically significant differences were found for alcohol risk. CONCLUSION: Although the third wave of this cohort study is not representative of the broader population on the variables assessed, weighting of the data and analytical approaches can account for differences.
Authors: Joule J Li; Sarah L Appleton; Gary A Wittert; Andrew Vakulin; R Douglas McEvoy; Nick A Antic; Robert J Adams Journal: Sleep Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Layla J Bunjo; Amy C Reynolds; Sarah L Appleton; Jill Dorrian; Céline Vetter; Tiffany K Gill; Robert J Adams Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2021-02
Authors: Sarah Appleton; Tiffany Gill; Anne Taylor; Douglas McEvoy; Zumin Shi; Catherine Hill; Amy Reynolds; Robert Adams Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anne W Taylor; Rhiannon Pilkington; Helen Feist; Eleonora Dal Grande; Graeme Hugo Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 3.295