Literature DB >> 26173046

What we don't know can hurt us: Nonresponse bias assessment in birth defects research.

Paula D Strassle1,2, Cynthia H Cassell2, Stuart K Shapira2, Sarah C Tinker2, Robert E Meyer3,4, Scott D Grosse2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nonresponse bias assessment is an important and underutilized tool in survey research to assess potential bias due to incomplete participation. This study illustrates a nonresponse bias sensitivity assessment using a survey on perceived barriers to care for children with orofacial clefts in North Carolina.
METHODS: Children born in North Carolina between 2001 and 2004 with an orofacial cleft were eligible for inclusion. Vital statistics data, including maternal and child characteristics, were available on all eligible subjects. Missing 'responses' from nonparticipants were imputed using assumptions based on the distribution of responses, survey method (mail or phone), and participant maternal demographics.
RESULTS: Overall, 245 of 475 subjects (51.6%) responded to either a mail or phone survey. Cost as a barrier to care was reported by 25.0% of participants. When stratified by survey type, 28.3% of mail respondents and 17.2% of phone respondents reported cost as a barrier. Under various assumptions, the bias-adjusted estimated prevalence of cost as barrier to care ranged from 16.1% to 30.0%. Maternal age, education, race, and marital status at time of birth were not associated with subjects reporting cost as a barrier.
CONCLUSION: As survey response rates continue to decline, the importance of assessing the potential impact of nonresponse bias has become more critical. Birth defects research is particularly conducive to nonresponse bias analysis, especially when birth defect registries and birth certificate records are used. Future birth defect studies which use population-based surveillance data and have incomplete participation could benefit from this type of nonresponse bias assessment. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 103:603-609, 2015.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  barriers to care; nonresponse bias; orofacial clefts; response rates

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26173046      PMCID: PMC4514019          DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23408

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol        ISSN: 1542-0752


  8 in total

1.  Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members.

Authors:  Floyd Jackson Fowler; Patricia M Gallagher; Vickie L Stringfellow; Alan M Zaslavsky; Joseph W Thompson; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys.

Authors:  Timothy P Johnson; Joseph S Wislar
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Evaluating survey quality in health services research: a decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias.

Authors:  Jonathon R B Halbesleben; Marilyn V Whitman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Nonresponse rates are a problematic indicator of nonresponse bias in survey research.

Authors:  Michael Davern
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Maternal perspectives: qualitative responses about perceived barriers to care among children with orofacial clefts in North Carolina.

Authors:  Cynthia H Cassell; Dara D Mendez; Ronald P Strauss
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2011-07-08

6.  Adjustment for response bias via two-phase analysis: an application.

Authors:  Katherine J Hoggatt; Sander Greenland; Beate R Ritz
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Barriers to care for children with orofacial clefts in North Carolina.

Authors:  Cynthia H Cassell; Paula Strassle; Dara D Mendez; Kyung A Lee; Anne Krohmer; Robert E Meyer; Ronald P Strauss
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2014-09-08

8.  Factors associated with distance and time traveled to cleft and craniofacial care.

Authors:  Cynthia H Cassell; Anne Krohmer; Dara D Mendez; Kyung A Lee; Ronald P Strauss; Robert E Meyer
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2013-09-02
  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  State-specific prevalence of current e-cigarette use by disability status and disability type-United States, BRFSS 2016-2018.

Authors:  Qing C Zhang; Elizabeth A Courtney-Long; Lisa B Sinclair; Sierra Reese; Brian S Armour; Stuart K Shapira
Journal:  Disabil Health J       Date:  2021-08-08       Impact factor: 2.554

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.