April M Young1, Abby E Rudolph2, Deane Quillen3, Jennifer R Havens4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA Department of Behavioral Science, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 2. The Calverton Center, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland, USA. 3. Division of General Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Department of Behavioral Science, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) has become a common tool for recruiting high-risk populations for HIV research. However, few studies have explored the influence of geospatial proximity and relationship-level characteristics on RDS recruitment, particularly among high-risk individuals residing in rural areas of the US. METHODS: In a social network study of 503 drug users in rural Central Appalachia, interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to collect relationship-level data (eg, duration of relationship, frequency of communication, kinship, social/financial support, trust, drug use and sex) and residential location. Demographic and drug-use similarity were also evaluated. Residential data were geocoded and road distance (km) between participants and (1) their network members and (2) the study site were computed. Seasonal patterns were assessed using node-level analysis, and dyadic analyses were conducted using generalised linear mixed models. Adjusted ORs (AORs) and 95% CIs are reported. RESULTS: Differences in distance to the study office by season and order of study entry were not observed (F=1.49, p=0.209 and β=0.074, p=0.050, respectively). Participants with transportation lived significantly further from the interview site than their counterparts (p<0.001). Dyadic analyses revealed no association between RDS recruitment likelihood and geographic proximity. However, kinship (AOR 1.62; CI 1.02 to 2.58) and frequency of communication (AOR 1.63; CI 1.25 to 2.13) were significantly associated with RDS recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, recruitment from one's network was likely non-random, contradicting a core RDS assumption. These data underscore the importance of formative research to elucidate potential recruitment preferences and of quantifying recruitment preferences for use in analysis. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) has become a common tool for recruiting high-risk populations for HIV research. However, few studies have explored the influence of geospatial proximity and relationship-level characteristics on RDS recruitment, particularly among high-risk individuals residing in rural areas of the US. METHODS: In a social network study of 503 drug users in rural Central Appalachia, interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to collect relationship-level data (eg, duration of relationship, frequency of communication, kinship, social/financial support, trust, drug use and sex) and residential location. Demographic and drug-use similarity were also evaluated. Residential data were geocoded and road distance (km) between participants and (1) their network members and (2) the study site were computed. Seasonal patterns were assessed using node-level analysis, and dyadic analyses were conducted using generalised linear mixed models. Adjusted ORs (AORs) and 95% CIs are reported. RESULTS: Differences in distance to the study office by season and order of study entry were not observed (F=1.49, p=0.209 and β=0.074, p=0.050, respectively). Participants with transportation lived significantly further from the interview site than their counterparts (p<0.001). Dyadic analyses revealed no association between RDS recruitment likelihood and geographic proximity. However, kinship (AOR 1.62; CI 1.02 to 2.58) and frequency of communication (AOR 1.63; CI 1.25 to 2.13) were significantly associated with RDS recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, recruitment from one's network was likely non-random, contradicting a core RDS assumption. These data underscore the importance of formative research to elucidate potential recruitment preferences and of quantifying recruitment preferences for use in analysis. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Epidemiological methods; HIV; Research Design in Epidemiology; SEXUALLY TRANS DIS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS
Authors: S R Friedman; A Neaigus; B Jose; R Curtis; M Goldstein; G Ildefonso; R B Rothenberg; D C Des Jarlais Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jichuan Wang; Robert G Carlson; Russel S Falck; Harvey A Siegal; Ahmmed Rahman; Linna Li Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2004-12-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Abby E Rudolph; Natalie D Crawford; Carl Latkin; Robert Heimer; Ebele O Benjamin; Kandice C Jones; Crystal M Fuller Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Nicky McCreesh; Simon D W Frost; Janet Seeley; Joseph Katongole; Matilda N Tarsh; Richard Ndunguse; Fatima Jichi; Natasha L Lunel; Dermot Maher; Lisa G Johnston; Pam Sonnenberg; Andrew J Copas; Richard J Hayes; Richard G White Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Jennifer R Havens; Michelle R Lofwall; Simon D W Frost; Carrie B Oser; Carl G Leukefeld; Richard A Crosby Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nicky McCreesh; Lisa G Johnston; Andrew Copas; Pam Sonnenberg; Janet Seeley; Richard J Hayes; Simon D W Frost; Richard G White Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.918
Authors: Alexander R Bazazi; Forrest Crawford; Alexei Zelenev; Robert Heimer; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Frederick L Altice Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2015-12
Authors: Hannah K Knudsen; Michelle R Lofwall; Sharon L Walsh; Jennifer R Havens; Jamie L Studts Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 3.702