Charlie Zhong1, Myles Cockburn2, Wendy Cozen2, Jenna Voutsinas1, James V Lacey1, Jianning Luo1, Jane Sullivan-Halley1, Leslie Bernstein1, Sophia S Wang3. 1. Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States. 2. Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California and the Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States. 3. Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States. Electronic address: sowang@coh.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional methodologies for identifying and recruiting controls in epidemiologic case-control studies, such as random digit dialing or neighborhood walk, suffer from declining response rates. Here, we revisit the feasibility and comparability of using alternative sources of controls, specifically friend and family controls. METHODS: We recruited from a recently completed case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) among women in Los Angeles County where controls from the parent study were ascertained by neighborhood walk. We calculated participation rates and compared questionnaire responses between the friend/family controls and the original matched controls from the parent study. RESULTS: Of the 182 NHL case patients contacted, 111 (61%) agreed to participate in our feasibility study. 70 (63%) provided contact information for potential friend and/or family member controls. We were able to successfully contact and recruit a friend/family member for 92% of the case patients. This represented 46 friend controls and 54 family controls. Family controls significantly differed from original matched controls by sex and household income. Other characteristics were similar between friend controls and the original study's neighborhood controls. CONCLUSION: The apparent comparability of neighborhood controls to friend and family controls among respondents in this study suggests that these alternative methods of control identification can serve as a complementary source of eligible controls in epidemiologic case-control studies.
BACKGROUND: Traditional methodologies for identifying and recruiting controls in epidemiologic case-control studies, such as random digit dialing or neighborhood walk, suffer from declining response rates. Here, we revisit the feasibility and comparability of using alternative sources of controls, specifically friend and family controls. METHODS: We recruited from a recently completed case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) among women in Los Angeles County where controls from the parent study were ascertained by neighborhood walk. We calculated participation rates and compared questionnaire responses between the friend/family controls and the original matched controls from the parent study. RESULTS: Of the 182 NHL case patients contacted, 111 (61%) agreed to participate in our feasibility study. 70 (63%) provided contact information for potential friend and/or family member controls. We were able to successfully contact and recruit a friend/family member for 92% of the case patients. This represented 46 friend controls and 54 family controls. Family controls significantly differed from original matched controls by sex and household income. Other characteristics were similar between friend controls and the original study's neighborhood controls. CONCLUSION: The apparent comparability of neighborhood controls to friend and family controls among respondents in this study suggests that these alternative methods of control identification can serve as a complementary source of eligible controls in epidemiologic case-control studies.
Authors: Lynda F Voigt; Stephen M Schwartz; David R Doody; Spencer C Lee; Christopher I Li Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 4.897
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
Authors: David C Hodgson; Melania Pintilie; Leah Gitterman; Beth Dewitt; Carol-Ann Buckley; Sameera Ahmed; Katherine Smith; Amanda Schwartz; Richard W Tsang; Michael Crump; Woodrow Wells; Alexander Sun; Mary K Gospodarowicz Journal: Hematol Oncol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.271
Authors: Roger L Milne; Esther M John; Julia A Knight; Gillian S Dite; Melissa C Southey; Graham G Giles; Carmel Apicella; Dee W West; Irene L Andrulis; Alice S Whittemore; John L Hopper Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Anne E Cust; Helen Schmid; Judith A Maskiell; Jodie Jetann; Megan Ferguson; Elizabeth A Holland; Chantelle Agha-Hamilton; Mark A Jenkins; John Kelly; Richard F Kefford; Graham G Giles; Bruce K Armstrong; Joanne F Aitken; John L Hopper; Graham J Mann Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: W F Schlech; K N Shands; A L Reingold; B B Dan; G P Schmid; N T Hargrett; A Hightower; L A Herwaldt; M A Neill; J D Band; J V Bennett Journal: JAMA Date: 1982-08-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elisa V Bandera; Urmila Chandran; Gary Zirpoli; Susan E McCann; Gregory Ciupak; Christine B Ambrosone Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Richard Rubenstein; Binggong Chang; John K Yue; Allen Chiu; Ethan A Winkler; Ava M Puccio; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia; Esther L Yuh; Pratik Mukherjee; Alex B Valadka; Wayne A Gordon; David O Okonkwo; Peter Davies; Sanjeev Agarwal; Fan Lin; George Sarkis; Hamad Yadikar; Zhihui Yang; Geoffrey T Manley; Kevin K W Wang; Shelly R Cooper; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Allison J Borrasso; Tomoo Inoue; Andrew I R Maas; David K Menon; David M Schnyer; Mary J Vassar Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Marissa B Savoie; Alan Paciorek; Li Zhang; Nilli Sommovilla; Alan P Venook; Erin L Van Blarigan; Katherine Van Loon Journal: J Clin Nutr Food Sci Date: 2019-07-12