Literature DB >> 25277505

Assessing differences in groups randomized by recruitment chain in a respondent-driven sample of Seattle-area injection drug users.

Richard D Burt1, Hanne Thiede2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a form of peer-based study recruitment and analysis that incorporates features designed to limit and adjust for biases in traditional snowball sampling. It is being widely used in studies of hidden populations. We report an empirical evaluation of RDS's consistency and variability, comparing groups recruited contemporaneously, by identical methods and using identical survey instruments.
METHODS: We randomized recruitment chains from the RDS-based 2012 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance survey of injection drug users in the Seattle area into two groups and compared them in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, drug-associated risk behaviors, sexual risk behaviors, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status and HIV testing frequency.
RESULTS: The two groups differed in five of the 18 variables examined (P ≤ .001): race (e.g., 60% white vs. 47%), gender (52% male vs. 67%), area of residence (32% downtown Seattle vs. 44%), an HIV test in the previous 12 months (51% vs. 38%). The difference in serologic HIV status was particularly pronounced (4% positive vs. 18%). In four further randomizations, differences in one to five variables attained this level of significance, although the specific variables involved differed.
CONCLUSIONS: We found some material differences between the randomized groups. Although the variability of the present study was less than has been reported in serial RDS surveys, these findings indicate caution in the interpretation of RDS results.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HIV; IDU; Respondent-driven sampling

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25277505      PMCID: PMC4252737          DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Epidemiol        ISSN: 1047-2797            Impact factor:   3.797


  30 in total

Review 1.  Street and network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction interventions.

Authors:  Salaam Semaan; Jennifer Lauby; Jon Liebman
Journal:  AIDS Rev       Date:  2002 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.500

Review 2.  Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance.

Authors:  Robert Magnani; Keith Sabin; Tobi Saidel; Douglas Heckathorn
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.177

3.  Implementation challenges to using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance: field experiences in international settings.

Authors:  Lisa Grazina Johnston; Mohsen Malekinejad; Carl Kendall; Irene M Iuppa; George W Rutherford
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2008-06-06

4.  How many men who have sex with men and female sex workers live in El Salvador? Using respondent-driven sampling and capture-recapture to estimate population sizes.

Authors:  G Paz-Bailey; J O Jacobson; M E Guardado; F M Hernandez; A I Nieto; M Estrada; J Creswell
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 5.  Variance estimation, design effects, and sample size calculations for respondent-driven sampling.

Authors:  Matthew J Salganik
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.671

6.  Subpopulations of illicit drug users reached by targeted street outreach and respondent-driven sampling strategies: implications for research and public health practice.

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

7.  Evaluation of respondent-driven sampling.

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

8.  Comparing study populations of men who have sex with men: evaluating consistency within repeat studies and across studies in the Seattle area using different recruitment methodologies.

Authors:  Richard D Burt; Alexandra M Oster; Mathew R Golden; Hanne Thiede
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2014-04

9.  Estimating design effect and calculating sample size for respondent-driven sampling studies of injection drug users in the United States.

Authors:  Cyprian Wejnert; Huong Pham; Nevin Krishna; Binh Le; Elizabeth DiNenno
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2012-05

10.  A comparison of respondent-driven and venue-based sampling of female sex workers in Liuzhou, China.

Authors:  Sharon S Weir; M Giovanna Merli; Jing Li; Anisha D Gandhi; William W Neely; Jessie K Edwards; Chirayath M Suchindran; Gail E Henderson; Xiang-Sheng Chen
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.519

View more
  4 in total

1.  The Where and How for Reaching Transgender Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men with HIV Prevention Services in Guatemala.

Authors:  William M Miller; William C Miller; Clare Barrington; Sharon S Weir; Sanny Y Chen; Michael E Emch; Audrey E Pettifor; Gabriela Paz-Bailey
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2017-12

2.  Comparison of Three Popular Methods for Recruiting Young Persons Who Inject Drugs for Interventional Studies.

Authors:  Melissa G Collier; Richard S Garfein; Jazmine Cuevas-Mota; Eyasu H Teshale
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.671

3.  Reduction in Needle Sharing Among Seattle-Area Injection Drug Users Across 4 Surveys, 1994-2013.

Authors:  Richard D Burt; Hanne Thiede
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  An application of agent-based modeling to explore the impact of decreasing incarceration rates and increasing drug treatment access on sero-discordant partnerships among people who inject drugs.

Authors:  Sabriya L Linton; Don C Des Jarlais; Joseph T Ornstein; Matt Kasman; Ross Hammond; Behzad Kianian; Justin C Smith; Mary E Wolfe; Zev Ross; Danielle German; Colin Flynn; Henry F Raymond; R Monina Klevens; Emma Spencer; John-Mark Schacht; Teresa Finlayson; Gabriela Paz-Bailey; Cyprian Wejnert; Hannah L F Cooper
Journal:  Int J Drug Policy       Date:  2021-03-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.