Jill Glidewell1, Jennita Reefhuis2, Sonja A Rasmussen3, Alison Woomert4, Charlotte Hobbs5, Paul A Romitti6, Krista S Crider2. 1. 1] National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA [2] Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As epidemiological studies expand to examine gene-environment interaction effects, it is important to identify factors associated with participation in genetic studies. The National Birth Defects Prevention Study is a multisite case-control study designed to investigate environmental and genetic risk factors for major birth defects. The National Birth Defects Prevention Study includes maternal telephone interviews and mailed buccal cell self-collection kits. Because subjects can participate in the interview, independent of buccal cell collection, detailed analysis of factors associated with participation in buccal cell collection was possible. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify the factors associated with participation in the genetic component of the study. RESULTS: Buccal cell participation rates varied by race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic whites, 66.9%; Hispanics, 60.4%; and non-Hispanic blacks, 47.3%) and study site (50.2-74.2%). Additional monetary incentive following return of buccal cell kit and shorter interval between infant's estimated date of delivery and interview were associated with increased participation across all racial/ethnic groups. Higher education and delivering an infant with a birth defect were associated with increased participation among non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with participation varied by race/ethnicity. Improved understanding of factors associated with participation may facilitate strategies to increase participation, thereby improving generalizability of study findings.
PURPOSE: As epidemiological studies expand to examine gene-environment interaction effects, it is important to identify factors associated with participation in genetic studies. The National Birth Defects Prevention Study is a multisite case-control study designed to investigate environmental and genetic risk factors for major birth defects. The National Birth Defects Prevention Study includes maternal telephone interviews and mailed buccal cell self-collection kits. Because subjects can participate in the interview, independent of buccal cell collection, detailed analysis of factors associated with participation in buccal cell collection was possible. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify the factors associated with participation in the genetic component of the study. RESULTS: Buccal cell participation rates varied by race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic whites, 66.9%; Hispanics, 60.4%; and non-Hispanic blacks, 47.3%) and study site (50.2-74.2%). Additional monetary incentive following return of buccal cell kit and shorter interval between infant's estimated date of delivery and interview were associated with increased participation across all racial/ethnic groups. Higher education and delivering an infant with a birth defect were associated with increased participation among non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with participation varied by race/ethnicity. Improved understanding of factors associated with participation may facilitate strategies to increase participation, thereby improving generalizability of study findings.
Authors: Joseph E Bauer; Hamed Rezaishiraz; Karen Head; John Cowell; Gerold Bepler; Miriam Aiken; K Michael Cummings; Andrew Hyland Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: P W Yoon; S A Rasmussen; M C Lynberg; C A Moore; M Anderka; S L Carmichael; P Costa; C Druschel; C A Hobbs; P A Romitti; P H Langlois; L D Edmonds Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Beth M Ford; James S Evans; Elena M Stoffel; Judith Balmaña; Meredith M Regan; Sapna Syngal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mary M Jenkins; Erika Reed-Gross; Wanda D Barfield; Christine E Prue; Margaret L Gallagher; Sonja A Rasmussen; Margaret A Honein Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Lynn T Kozlowski; George P Vogler; David J Vandenbergh; Andrew A Strasser; Richard J O'Connor; Berwood A Yost Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jennita Reefhuis; Suzanne M Gilboa; Marlene Anderka; Marilyn L Browne; Marcia L Feldkamp; Charlotte A Hobbs; Mary M Jenkins; Peter H Langlois; Kimberly B Newsome; Andrew F Olshan; Paul A Romitti; Stuart K Shapira; Gary M Shaw; Sarah C Tinker; Margaret A Honein Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2015-06-02
Authors: April L Dawson; Hilda Razzaghi; Annelise Arth; Mark A Canfield; Samantha E Parker; Jennita Reefhuis Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2015-04-17