Literature DB >> 32370853

Participation Bias in a Survey of Community Patients With Heart Failure.

Irmak Simsek1, Sheila M Manemann1, Kathleen J Yost1, Alanna M Chamberlain1, Matteo Fabbri1, Ruoxiang Jiang1, Susan A Weston1, Veronique L Roger2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify differences between participants and nonparticipants in a survey of physical and psychosocial aspects of health among a population-based sample of patients with heart failure (HF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Residents from 11 Minnesota counties with a first-ever code for HF (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision 428 and Tenth Revision I50) between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were identified. Participants completed a questionnaire by mail or telephone. Characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records and compared between participants and nonparticipants. Response rate was calculated using guidelines of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. The association between nonparticipation and outcomes was examined using Cox proportional hazards regression for death and Andersen-Gill modeling for hospitalizations.
RESULTS: Among 7911 patients, 3438 responded to the survey (American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate calculated using formula 2 = 43%). Clinical and demographic differences between participants and nonparticipants were noted, particularly for education, marital status, and neuropsychiatric conditions. After a mean ± SD of 1.5±1.0 years after survey administration, 1575 deaths and 5857 hospitalizations occurred. Nonparticipation was associated with a 2-fold increased risk for death (hazard ratio, 2.29; 95% CI, 2.05-2.56) and 11% increased risk for hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22) after adjusting for age, sex, time from HF diagnosis to index date, marital status, coronary disease, arrhythmia, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, cancer, chronic kidney disease, arthritis, osteoporosis, depression, and anxiety.
CONCLUSION: In a large survey of patients with HF, participation was associated with notable differences in clinical and demographic characteristics and outcomes. Examining the impact of participation is critical to draw inference from studies of patient-reported measures.
Copyright © 2019 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32370853      PMCID: PMC7213075          DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.11.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc        ISSN: 0025-6196            Impact factor:   7.616


  24 in total

1.  On revealing what we'd rather hide: the problem of describing study participation.

Authors:  Dale P Sandler
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Participation bias assessment in a community-based study of myocardial infarction, 2002-2005.

Authors:  Yariv Gerber; Steven J Jacobsen; Jill M Killian; Susan A Weston; Veronique L Roger
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 7.616

3.  Defining urban and rural areas in U.S. epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Susan A Hall; Jay S Kaufman; Thomas C Ricketts
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.671

Review 4.  ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Variation in mortality patterns among the general population, study participants, and different types of nonparticipants: evidence from 25 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Matthias Bopp; Julia Braun; David Faeh
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Nonresponse bias in survey research: lessons from a prospective study of breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Nicholas L Berlin; Jennifer B Hamill; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 2.192

7.  Social isolation, survey nonresponse, and nonresponse bias: An empirical evaluation using social network data within an organization.

Authors:  Megumi Watanabe; Kristen Olson; Christina Falci
Journal:  Soc Sci Res       Date:  2016-09-16

8.  Deployment of a mixed-mode data collection strategy does not reduce nonresponse bias in a general population health survey.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; Donna D McAlpine; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah Jenkins; Lindsey Haas; Michael E Davern
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Assessing participation bias in a population-based study of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine immunity in children and adolescents aged 12-18.

Authors:  Jennifer L St Sauver; Steven J Jacobsen; Robert M Jacobson; Robert A Vierkant; Inna G Ovsyannikova; Neelam Dhiman; Gregory A Poland
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.980

Review 10.  History of the Rochester Epidemiology Project: half a century of medical records linkage in a US population.

Authors:  Walter A Rocca; Barbara P Yawn; Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 7.616

View more
  1 in total

1.  Patient-centered communication and outcomes in heart failure.

Authors:  Matteo Fabbri; Lila J Finney Rutten; Sheila M Manemann; Cynthia Boyd; Jennifer Wolff; Alanna M Chamberlain; Susan A Weston; Kathleen J Yost; Joan M Griffin; Jill M Killian; Véronique L Roger
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.229

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.