| Literature DB >> 28330465 |
Kei Long Cheung1, Peter M Ten Klooster2, Cees Smit3, Hein de Vries4, Marcel E Pieterse2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In public health monitoring of young people it is critical to understand the effects of selective non-response, in particular when a controversial topic is involved like substance abuse or sexual behaviour. Research that is dependent upon voluntary subject participation is particularly vulnerable to sampling bias. As respondents whose participation is hardest to elicit on a voluntary basis are also more likely to report risk behaviour, this potentially leads to underestimation of risk factor prevalence. Inviting adolescents to participate in a home-sent postal survey is a typical voluntary recruitment strategy with high non-response, as opposed to mandatory participation during school time. This study examines the extent to which prevalence estimates of adolescent health-related characteristics are biased due to different sampling methods, and whether this also biases within-subject analyses.Entities:
Keywords: Non-response; adolescents; health behaviour; recruitment; sampling bias
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28330465 PMCID: PMC5363011 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4189-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Descriptive statistics per sample
|
| Mean (SD) | % of sample |
| Mean (SD) | % of sample | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory sample (Twente) | Voluntary sample (IJsselland) | ||||||
| Age | 8761 | 14.23 (1.14) | - | Age | 1571 | 14.29 (1.07) | - |
| Educationa | 9295 | - | 51.5 | Educationa | 1723 | - | 61.3 |
| Genderb | 9359 | - | 49.2 | Genderb | 1952 | - | 55.8 |
| School experiencesc | 9354 | 2.52 (.85) | - | School experiencesc | 1913 | 2.13 (.73) | - |
| Subjective healthd | 9356 | 1.85 (.70) | - | Subjective healthd | 1892 | 1.75 (.69) | - |
| SDQ | 9349 | - | - | SDQ | 1952 | - | - |
| Unlikely | 8275 | - | 88.5 | Unlikely | 1712 | - | 91.3 |
| Possible | 753 | - | 8.1 | Possible | 104 | - | 5.5 |
| Probable | 321 | - | 3.4 | Probable | 60 | - | 3.2 |
| Tobacco consumptione | 9291 | - | 9.13 | Tobacco consumptione | 1951 | - | 3.5 |
| Alcohol consumptionf | 9015 | - | 51.8 | Alcohol consumptionf | 1944 | - | 26.2 |
| Lifetime alcohol consumptiong | 9280 | 5.67 (5.26) | - | Lifetime alcohol consumptiong | 1684 | 2.31 (3.48) | - |
| Alcohol in past four weeksh | 9272 | - | 41.5 | Alcohol in past four weeksh | 1678 | - | 11.1 |
| Sexual intercoursei | 9247 | 1.28 (.79) | - | Sexual intercoursei | 1649 | 1.13 (.55) | - |
aPercentage students HAVO/VWO
bPercentage females
c(1) great fun, (2) fun, (3) neutral, (4) not fun, (5) dreadful
d(1) very good, (2) good, (3) neutral, (4) not good, (5) poor
ePercentage daily smoker
fPercentage respondents who had ever consumed alcohol
g0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11–19, 20 > times
hPercentage respondents who drank alcohol in the past four weeks
i(1) never, (2) once, (3) couple of times, (4) regularly
Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses
| Univariate model | Multivariable model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| OR (95% CI) | Wald | OR (95% CI) | Wald | |
| School experiencesa | 11,267 | .54 (.50–.58)* | 324.36 | .62 (.57–.67)* | 151.51 |
| Subjective healthb | 11,248 | .80 (.74–.86)* | 37.10 | .84 (.77–.91)* | 16.75 |
| SDQ | 11,225 | ||||
| Unlikely (ref) | 9987 | 1.00 | 14.31 | 1.00 | 9.78 |
| Possible | 857 | .67 (.54–.83)* | 14.02 | .68 (.53–.86)* | 9.77 |
| Probable | 381 | .90 (.68–1.20) | .50 | 1.00 (.72–1.38) | .00 |
| Tobacco consumptionc | 11,242 | .37 (.28–.47)* | 62.22 | .45 (.33–.60)* | 30.08 |
| Alcohol consumptiond | 10,959 | .33 (.30–.37)* | 392.98 | .32 (.27–.36)* | 248.80 |
| Lifetime alcohol consumptione | 10,964 | .84 (.83–.85)* | 488.22 | .81 (.80–83)* | 388.29 |
| Alcohol in past four weeksf | 10,950 | .18 (.15–.21)* | 466.79 | .13 (.11–.16)* | 365.73 |
| Sexual intercourseg | 10,896 | .71 (.64–.78)* | 52.12 | .76 (.68–.85)* | 24.29 |
Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses, separately conducted for each health-related variable versus sampling method (mandatory sample (Twente) = 0; voluntary sample (IJsselland) = 1). All analyses were first conducted without correction for demographic differences between both samples), and then repeated with gender, age, and education level added to the models as covariates
a(1) great fun, (2) fun, (3) neutral, (4) not fun, (5) dreadful
b(1) very good, (2) good, (3) neutral, (4) not good, (5) poor
cDaily smoker: (0) no, (1) yes
dHad ever consumed alcohol: (0) no, (1) yes
eLifetime alcohol consumption: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11–19, 20 > times
fHad alcohol in the past four weeks: (0) no, (1) yes
g(1) never, (2) once, (3) couple of times, (4) regularly
*= p < .01 (two-tailed)