Literature DB >> 27100357

50 % Response rates: half-empty, or half-full?

James V Lacey1, Kristen E Savage2.   

Abstract

When the Black Women's Health Study, a prospective cohort of over 59,000 women who have been followed since 1995, invited all of its participants to provide a DNA sample for future research, only 51 % of those participants agreed to do so. Responders were significantly older and more health conscious than non-responders. The Black Women's Health Study is a unique resource, but this low level of response and its resulting self-selection bias are now the norm in contemporary epidemiologic, and especially cohort, studies. Epidemiology desperately needs new approaches that work better and cost less. The literature on predictors of response focuses too narrowly on participant characteristics and does not identify any clear steps studies can take to increase participation. To improve research quality, cost-efficiency, and long-term sustainability of studies, epidemiology can and should approach, analyze, and leverage response-rate data more creatively and extensively than most studies have done to date.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Biobanking; Cohort; Epidemiology; Methodology; Response rates

Year:  2016        PMID: 27100357      PMCID: PMC9005206          DOI: 10.1007/s10552-016-0748-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  10 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

Authors:  Sérgio Henrique Almeida da Silva Junior; Simone M Santos; Cláudia Medina Coeli; Marilia Sá Carvalho
Journal:  Cad Saude Publica       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.632

2.  Reporting participation in epidemiologic studies: a survey of practice.

Authors:  Lindsay M Morton; Jack Cahill; Patricia Hartge
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States).

Authors:  Leslie Bernstein; Mark Allen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Dennis Deapen; Pamela L Horn-Ross; David Peel; Richard Pinder; Peggy Reynolds; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Dee West; William Wright; Al Ziogas; Ronald K Ross
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 4.  Participation rates in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Sandro Galea; Melissa Tracy
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 3.797

5.  Secular trends in response rates for controls selected by random digit dialing in childhood cancer studies: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Authors:  Greta R Bunin; Logan G Spector; Andrew F Olshan; Leslie L Robison; Michelle Roesler; Seymour Grufferman; Xiao-ou Shu; Julie A Ross
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-04-23       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  A comprehensive evidence-based approach is needed for promoting participation in health research: a commentary on Williams.

Authors:  Craig L Fry
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-01-28       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Promoting research participation: why not advertise altruism?

Authors:  Brian Williams; Vikki Entwistle; Gill Haddow; Mary Wells
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-01-28       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Establishment of the cancer prevention study II nutrition cohort colorectal tissue repository.

Authors:  Peter T Campbell; Anusila Deka; Peter Briggs; Mine Cicek; Alton B Farris; Mia M Gaudet; Eric J Jacobs; Christina C Newton; Alpa V Patel; Lauren R Teras; Stephen N Thibodeau; Lori Tillmans; Susan M Gapstur
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Healthy women's motivators and barriers to participation in a breast cancer cohort study: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Pamela S Sinicrope; Christi A Patten; Sarah M Bonnema; Julka R Almquist; Christina M Smith; Timothy J Beebe; Steven J Jacobsen; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2009-03-09       Impact factor: 3.797

10.  The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate.

Authors:  Raymond G De Vries; Tom Tomlinson; H Myra Kim; Chris D Krenz; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole Lehpamer; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2016-03-11
  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Enrollment and biospecimen collection in a multiethnic family cohort: the Northern California site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Esther M John; Meera Sangaramoorthy; Jocelyn Koo; Alice S Whittemore; Dee W West
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  Participants who were difficult to recruit at baseline are less likely to complete a follow-up questionnaire - results from the German National Cohort.

Authors:  Stefan Rach; Kathrin Günther; Birte Hadeler
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Using Marketing Automation to Modernize Data Collection in the California Teachers Study Cohort.

Authors:  Kristen E Savage; Jennifer L Benbow; Christine Duffy; Emma S Spielfogel; Nadia T Chung; Sophia S Wang; Maria Elena Martinez; James V Lacey
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  The accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of Parkinson disease. The HUNT study.

Authors:  Eldbjørg Hustad; Anne Heidi Skogholt; Kristian Hveem; Jan O Aasly
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 4.849

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.