Literature DB >> 8970495

Differences between respondents and nonrespondents in a multicenter community-based study vary by gender ethnicity. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Investigators.

R Jackson1, L E Chambless, K Yang, T Byrne, R Watson, A Folsom, E Shahar, W Kalsbeek.   

Abstract

This study provides data on differences between respondents and nonrespondents by gender and ethnicity in a multicenter community-based study that is rarely collected and that may be useful for estimating bias in prevalence estimates in other studies. Demographic, general health, and cardiovascular risk factors were examined in black and white respondents and nonrespondents to the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, a prospective study investigating cardiovascular risk factors in approximately 16,000 adults that was initiated in 1986 in four U.S. communities. In one of the communities (Jackson, MS) black participants were recruited exclusively; in another (Forsyth County, NC) 12% of the eligible sample were black, whereas the samples in Washington County, MD and the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis, MN were almost all white. Demographic and health characteristics were collected during a home interview. Subjects who subsequently agreed to complete a clinical examination were defined as respondents, while eligible participants who only took part in the home interview were considered to be nonrespondents. Approximately 75% of age-eligible individuals (45-64 years) in each community completed the home interview. In three of the communities 86-88% of those who took part in the home interview also completed the clinic examination, whereas only 65% did so in Jackson. Among white participants, response rates were similar in men and women and between communities. Among black participants, the response rates were considerably lower, particularly in men. White male respondents reported a higher socioeconomic status, better general health and a lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease and associated risk factors than white male nonrespondents. The difference between white respondents and nonrespondents were greater for men than women despite similar response rates. Among black participants, respondent/nonrespondent difference were usually of smaller magnitude or absent, particularly in women. General health status and recent hospitalization rates were almost identical in black respondents and nonrespondents. Low response rates can bias estimates of prevalence in community-based studies although differences between respondents and nonrespondents tend to exaggerate real differences between respondents and the eligible population sampled. For example, among white males 25% of respondents and 44% of nonrespondents were current smokers, yet the estimated community prevalence of smoking was 31%. In conclusion, difference observed between respondents and nonrespondents were in the expected direction, but were greater for men than women and for whites than blacks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8970495     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00047-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  112 in total

1.  Recruitment of African Americans to National Oncology Clinical Trials through a clinical trial shared resource.

Authors:  Debra Wujcik; Steven N Wolff
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2010-02

2.  Effect on trend estimates of the difference between survey respondents and non-respondents: results from 27 populations in the WHO MONICA Project.

Authors:  Hanna Tolonen; Annette Dobson; Sangita Kulathinal
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Effect of sampling frames on response rates in the WHO MONICA risk factor surveys.

Authors:  Hermann K Wolf; Kari Kuulasmaa; Hanna Tolonen; Susana Sans; Anu Molarius; Brian J Eastwood
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Early-life and adult socioeconomic status and inflammatory risk markers in adulthood.

Authors:  Ricardo A Pollitt; Jay S Kaufman; Kathryn M Rose; Ana V Diez-Roux; Donglin Zeng; Gerardo Heiss
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  Leveraging Digital Data to Inform and Improve Quality Cancer Care.

Authors:  Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Asthma and incident cardiovascular disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

Authors:  J G Schanen; C Iribarren; E Shahar; N M Punjabi; S S Rich; P D Sorlie; A R Folsom
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 9.139

7.  Geographic variation in CKD prevalence and ESRD incidence in the United States: results from the reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke (REGARDS) study.

Authors:  Rikki M Tanner; Orlando M Gutiérrez; Suzanne Judd; William McClellan; C Barrett Bowling; Brian D Bradbury; Monika M Safford; Mary Cushman; David Warnock; Paul Muntner
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2012-12-08       Impact factor: 8.860

8.  Obesity and vital exhaustion: analysis of the Atherosclerosis Risk in the Communities study.

Authors:  Maria J Bryant; June Stevens; Kimberly P Truesdale; Thomas Mosley; Lloyd Chambless
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2008-05-01       Impact factor: 5.002

9.  Relative importance of systemic determinants of retinal arteriolar and venular caliber: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study.

Authors:  Gerald Liew; A Richey Sharrett; Jie Jin Wang; Ronald Klein; Barbara E K Klein; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-10

10.  Physical activity and cardiovascular disease in African Americans in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Bell; Pamela L Lutsey; Beverly G Windham; Aaron R Folsom
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.