Literature DB >> 23568592

Responders versus nonresponders in a dementia study of the oldest old: the 90+ study.

Annlia Paganini-Hill1, Beverly Ducey, Marian Hawk.   

Abstract

Because of difficulties in finding, recruiting, and diagnosing dementia in the oldest old (ages ≥90 years), most incidence studies include few very elderly persons, and little is known about the characteristics of those who refuse participation. In a California longitudinal study of dementia and aging (The 90+ Study, 2003-2011), we compared nonresponders with responders with regard to information collected 20 years earlier and the impression of dementia as determined during telephone recruitment. Of 1,815 eligible subjects, 1,514 (83%) joined the study, 182 refused, and 119 could not be contacted. Responders did not differ from nonresponders by sex or previously collected medical history or lifestyle behaviors. Recruiters' impressions of dementia were similar in responders and nonresponders who refused (35% and 38%), and among responders, impressions of dementia showed high positive predictive value (95%) but low sensitivity (51%) for a diagnosis of dementia made during the study. Although epidemiologic studies among the very old have the potential for significant nonresponse bias due to a high proportion of frail, ill, and cognitively impaired persons, strategies can improve response rates to over 80%. Classifying nonresponders on cognitive ability at recruitment, though crude, will give some idea of the selective bias in dementia prevalence and incidence estimates introduced by nonresponse due to cognitive status.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aged; bias; cohort studies; dementia; epidemiologic methods; refusal to participate

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23568592      PMCID: PMC3676153          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  41 in total

1.  The Longitudinal Study of Aging: 1984-90.

Authors:  M G Kovar; J E Fitti; M M Chyba
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 1       Date:  1992-07

2.  Response bias in a health status survey of elderly people.

Authors:  K Rockwood; P Stolee; D Robertson; E R Shillington
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 10.668

Review 3.  Epidemiology of disability in the oldest old: methodologic issues and preliminary findings.

Authors:  J C Cornoni-Huntley; D J Foley; L R White; R Suzman; L F Berkman; D A Evans; R B Wallace
Journal:  Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc       Date:  1985

4.  A longitudinal study of functional change and mortality in the United States.

Authors:  K G Manton
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1988-09

5.  Nonresponse pattern and bias in a community-based cross-sectional study of cognitive functioning among the elderly.

Authors:  L J Launer; A W Wind; D J Deeg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1994-04-15       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  A prospective study of functional status among community elders.

Authors:  L G Branch; S Katz; K Kniepmann; J A Papsidero
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  A study of the reliability of the family history method in genetic studies of Alzheimer disease.

Authors:  J M Silverman; R S Keefe; R C Mohs; K L Davis
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.703

8.  Exercise and other factors in the prevention of hip fracture: the Leisure World study.

Authors:  A Paganini-Hill; A Chao; R K Ross; B E Henderson
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Incidence of dementia in the Lundby Study.

Authors:  O Hagnell; L Ojesjö; B Rorsman
Journal:  Neuroepidemiology       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  Patterns of nonresponse in a national survey of elderly Japanese.

Authors:  G M Jay; J Liang; X Liu; H Sugisawa
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1993-05
View more
  2 in total

1.  The Risk of Selection Bias in a Clinical Multi-Center Cohort Study. Results from the Norwegian Cognitive Impairment After Stroke (Nor-COAST) Study.

Authors:  Karen Rosmo Kuvås; Ingvild Saltvedt; Stina Aam; Pernille Thingstad; Hanne Ellekjær; Torunn Askim
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 4.790

2.  Analysis of factors influencing telephone call response rate in an epidemiological study.

Authors:  Jorge Matías-Guiu; Pedro Jesús Serrano-Castro; José Ángel Mauri-Llerda; Francisco José Hernández-Ramos; Juan Carlos Sánchez-Alvarez; Marisa Sanz
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-10-21
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.