Mengting Xu1, Lesley Richardson2, Sally Campbell2, Javier Pintos2, Jack Siemiatycki3. 1. University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: mengting.xu1@gmail.com. 2. University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe time trends in response rates in case-control studies of cancer and identify study design factors that influence response rate. METHODS: We reviewed 370 case-control studies of cancer published in 12 journals during indicator years in each of the last four decades. We estimated time trends of response rates and reasons for nonresponse in each of the following types of study subjects: cases, medical source controls, and population controls. We also estimated response rates according to characteristics of study context. RESULTS: Median response rates among cases and population controls were between 75% and 80% in the 1970s. Between 1971 and 2010, study response rates declined by 0.31% per year for cases and 0.78% for population controls. Only a minority of studies reported reasons for nonparticipation; subject refusal was the most common reported reason. Studies conducted in North America had lower median response rates than studies conducted in Europe. In-person and telephone interviews elicited higher response rates than mail questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates from case-control studies of cancer have declined, and this could threaten the validity of results derived from these studies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe time trends in response rates in case-control studies of cancer and identify study design factors that influence response rate. METHODS: We reviewed 370 case-control studies of cancer published in 12 journals during indicator years in each of the last four decades. We estimated time trends of response rates and reasons for nonresponse in each of the following types of study subjects: cases, medical source controls, and population controls. We also estimated response rates according to characteristics of study context. RESULTS: Median response rates among cases and population controls were between 75% and 80% in the 1970s. Between 1971 and 2010, study response rates declined by 0.31% per year for cases and 0.78% for population controls. Only a minority of studies reported reasons for nonparticipation; subject refusal was the most common reported reason. Studies conducted in North America had lower median response rates than studies conducted in Europe. In-person and telephone interviews elicited higher response rates than mail questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates from case-control studies of cancer have declined, and this could threaten the validity of results derived from these studies.
Authors: Simon Cheah; Julie K Bassett; Fiona J Bruinsma; Wendy Cozen; John L Hopper; Harindra Jayasekara; Douglas Joshua; Robert J MacInnis; H Miles Prince; Claire M Vajdic; Marina T van Leeuwen; Nicole Wong Doo; Simon J Harrison; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne Journal: EJHaem Date: 2021-11-10
Authors: Carrie A Miller; Jeanine P D Guidry; Bassam Dahman; Maria D Thomson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Shelley S Tworoger; Brian D Gonzalez; Cassandra A Hathaway; Melody N Chavez; Mika Kadono; Dana Ketcher; Dana E Rollison; Erin M Siegel; Anita R Peoples; Cornelia M Ulrich; Frank J Penedo Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2021-08-06
Authors: Neela Guha; Liacine Bouaoun; Hans Kromhout; Roel Vermeulen; Thomas Brüning; Thomas Behrens; Susan Peters; Véronique Luzon; Jack Siemiatycki; Mengting Xu; Benjamin Kendzia; Pascal Guenel; Danièle Luce; Stefan Karrasch; Heinz-Erich Wichmann; Dario Consonni; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil E Caporaso; Per Gustavsson; Nils Plato; Franco Merletti; Dario Mirabelli; Lorenzo Richiardi; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Wolfgang Ahrens; Hermann Pohlabeln; Lap Ah Tse; Ignatius Tak-Sun Yu; Adonina Tardón; Paolo Boffetta; David Zaridze; Andrea 't Mannetje; Neil Pearce; Michael P A Davies; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Świątkowska; John McLaughlin; Paul A Demers; Vladimir Bencko; Lenka Foretova; Vladimir Janout; Tamás Pándics; Eleonora Fabianova; Dana Mates; Francesco Forastiere; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Joachim Schüz; Kurt Straif; Ann Olsson Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Ellen M Velie; Lydia R Marcus; Dorothy R Pathak; Ann S Hamilton; Ralph DiGaetano; Ron Klinger; Bibi Gollapudi; Richard Houang; Nicole Carnegie; L Karl Olson; Amani Allen; Zhenzhen Zhang; Denise Modjesk; Gwendolyn Norman; Darek R Lucas; Sapna Gupta; Hallgeir Rui; Kendra Schwartz Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 2.506