OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of nonresponse in a community survey of cognitive status in the elderly. DESIGN: Cross-sectional community survey with two stages of recruitment: an initial, less-intensive method, followed by a more aggressive approach that included face-to-face contact. Characteristics of initial nonresponders and responders were compared. SETTING: A close-knit rural community with higher than usual proportions of elderly, especially the very old. Subjects were interviewed in their homes. Collateral informants were subsequently interviewed by telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Utah heads of household aged 75 and older who resided in a noninstitutionalized setting. MEASUREMENTS: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Dementia Questionnaire, and an autobiographical risk factor and family history questionnaire provided measures for all independent variables. The dependent variable was status as initial responders or initial nonresponders. RESULTS: An initial participation rate of 63% was achieved, but a final rate of 93% was achieved when initial nonresponders were contacted later face-to-face. MMSE score was significantly related to responder status when analyzed alone (beta = -.19, P = 0.02) and remained a significant predictor after adjusting for education and whether born in Cache County (beta = -.16, P = 0.041) or current drinking, diabetes, or "other" health problems (beta = -.18, P = 0.028). After controlling for the informant report of subject's problems with activities of daily living, MMSE score fell just below statistical significance (beta = -.16, P = 0.079). CONCLUSIONS: Nonresponders in community surveys of the elderly appear to be disproportionately cognitively impaired. The increase in participation rates achieved after more persistent recruitment suggests that many initial nonresponders can still be recruited if intensive methods are used.
OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of nonresponse in a community survey of cognitive status in the elderly. DESIGN: Cross-sectional community survey with two stages of recruitment: an initial, less-intensive method, followed by a more aggressive approach that included face-to-face contact. Characteristics of initial nonresponders and responders were compared. SETTING: A close-knit rural community with higher than usual proportions of elderly, especially the very old. Subjects were interviewed in their homes. Collateral informants were subsequently interviewed by telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Utah heads of household aged 75 and older who resided in a noninstitutionalized setting. MEASUREMENTS: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Dementia Questionnaire, and an autobiographical risk factor and family history questionnaire provided measures for all independent variables. The dependent variable was status as initial responders or initial nonresponders. RESULTS: An initial participation rate of 63% was achieved, but a final rate of 93% was achieved when initial nonresponders were contacted later face-to-face. MMSE score was significantly related to responder status when analyzed alone (beta = -.19, P = 0.02) and remained a significant predictor after adjusting for education and whether born in Cache County (beta = -.16, P = 0.041) or current drinking, diabetes, or "other" health problems (beta = -.18, P = 0.028). After controlling for the informant report of subject's problems with activities of daily living, MMSE score fell just below statistical significance (beta = -.16, P = 0.079). CONCLUSIONS: Nonresponders in community surveys of the elderly appear to be disproportionately cognitively impaired. The increase in participation rates achieved after more persistent recruitment suggests that many initial nonresponders can still be recruited if intensive methods are used.
Authors: Christoph E Minder; Tobias Müller; Gerhard Gillmann; John C Beck; Andreas E Stuck Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: K M Hayden; M C Norton; D Darcey; T Ostbye; P P Zandi; J C S Breitner; K A Welsh-Bohmer Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Maria C Norton; Ken R Smith; Truls Østbye; JoAnn T Tschanz; Chris Corcoran; Sarah Schwartz; Kathleen W Piercy; Peter V Rabins; David C Steffens; Ingmar Skoog; John C S Breitner; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Maria C Norton; Jeffrey Dew; Heeyoung Smith; Elizabeth Fauth; Kathleen W Piercy; John C S Breitner; JoAnn Tschanz; Heidi Wengreen; Kathleen Welsh-Bohmer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: David S Knopman; Rosebud O Roberts; V Shane Pankratz; Ruth H Cha; Walter A Rocca; Michelle M Mielke; Bradley F Boeve; Eric G Tangalos; Robert J Ivnik; Yonas E Geda; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Thomas Polak; Martin J Herrmann; Laura D Müller; Julia B M Zeller; Andrea Katzorke; Matthias Fischer; Fabian Spielmann; Erik Weinmann; Leif Hommers; Martin Lauer; Andreas J Fallgatter; Jürgen Deckert Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Heidi Wengreen; Ronald G Munger; Adele Cutler; Anna Quach; Austin Bowles; Christopher Corcoran; Joann T Tschanz; Maria C Norton; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 7.045