Gregory Phillips1, Lisa M Kuhns2, Rob Garofalo2, Brian Mustanski1. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To generate unbiased estimates for data collected using respondent-driven sampling (RDS), a number of assumptions need to be met: individuals recruit randomly from their social network and people can accurately report their eligible network size. However, research has shown that these assumptions are often violated. METHODS: This study used baseline data from Crew 450, a longitudinal study of young men who have sex with men in Chicago who were recruited via a modified form of RDS and its network substudy, in which a subset of 175 participants reported details on the composition and characteristics of their social network at either 1 or 2 years postbaseline. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of participants reported giving coupons to at least one alter (64%), and 56.3% believed their alter(s) used the coupons. Frequency of communication, closeness and type of relationship played a major role in determining coupon distribution. Participants whose alters used coupons were significantly less likely to describe the strength of their relationship as 'not at all close' (OR=0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.36) compared with 'very close' and to communicate weekly (OR=0.20; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.49) or 1-6 times in the past 6 months (OR=0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to RDS assumptions, we found that relationship characteristics played a significant role when individuals decided to whom they would give coupons. 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: To generate unbiased estimates for data collected using respondent-driven sampling (RDS), a number of assumptions need to be met: individuals recruit randomly from their social network and people can accurately report their eligible network size. However, research has shown that these assumptions are often violated. METHODS: This study used baseline data from Crew 450, a longitudinal study of young men who have sex with men in Chicago who were recruited via a modified form of RDS and its network substudy, in which a subset of 175 participants reported details on the composition and characteristics of their social network at either 1 or 2 years postbaseline. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of participants reported giving coupons to at least one alter (64%), and 56.3% believed their alter(s) used the coupons. Frequency of communication, closeness and type of relationship played a major role in determining coupon distribution. Participants whose alters used coupons were significantly less likely to describe the strength of their relationship as 'not at all close' (OR=0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.36) compared with 'very close' and to communicate weekly (OR=0.20; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.49) or 1-6 times in the past 6 months (OR=0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to RDS assumptions, we found that relationship characteristics played a significant role when individuals decided to whom they would give coupons. 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
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: 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: Lisa M Kuhns; Soyang Kwon; Daniel T Ryan; Robert Garofalo; Gregory Phillips; Brian S Mustanski Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: James R Hargreaves; Elizabeth Fearon; Calum Davey; Andrew Phillips; Valentina Cambiano; Frances M Cowan Journal: Trials Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Rebecca F Carlin; Benjamin Cornwell; Jichuan Wang; Yao Cheng; Anita Mathews; Rosalind P Oden; Linda Y Fu; Rachel Y Moon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240