Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2

被引:9
作者
Duszynski, Thomas J. [1 ]
Fadel, William [1 ]
Dixon, Brian E. [1 ,2 ]
Yiannoutsos, Constantin [1 ]
Halverson, Paul K. [1 ]
Menachemi, Nir [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Richard M Fairbanks Sch Publ Hlth, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[2] Regenstrief Inst Inc, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
assessment; nonresponse bias; SARS-CoV-2; surveillance; RESPONSE RATES; ALCOHOL;
D O I
10.1097/PHH.0000000000001508
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Introduction: Nonresponse bias occurs when participants in a study differ from eligible nonparticipants in ways that can distort study conclusions. The current study uses successive wave analysis, an established but underutilized approach, to assess nonresponse bias in a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study. Such an approach makes use of reminders to induce participation among individuals. Based on the response continuum theory, those requiring several reminders to participate are more like nonrespondents than those who participate in a study upon first invitation, thus allowing for an examination of factors affecting participation. Methods: Study participants from the Indiana Population Prevalence SARS-CoV-2 Study were divided into 3 groups (eg, waves) based upon the number of reminders that were needed to induce participation. Independent variables were then used to determine whether key demographic characteristics as well as other variables hypothesized to influence study participation differed by wave using chi-square analyses. Specifically, we examined whether race, age, gender, education level, health status, tobacco behaviors, COVID-19-related symptoms, reasons for participating in the study, and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates differed by wave. Results: Respondents included 3658 individuals, including 1495 in wave 1 (40.9%), 1246 in wave 2 (34.1%), and 917 in wave 3 (25%), for an overall participation rate of 23.6%. No significant differences in any examined variables were observed across waves, suggesting similar characteristics among those needing additional reminders compared with early participants. Conclusions: Using established techniques, we found no evidence of nonresponse bias in a random sample with a relatively low response rate. A hypothetical additional wave of participants would be unlikely to change original study conclusions. Successive wave analysis is an effective and easy tool that can allow public health researchers to assess, and possibly adjust for, nonresponse in any epidemiological survey that uses reminders to encourage participation.
引用
收藏
页码:E685 / E691
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] Participation and factors associated with late or non-response to an online survey in primary care
    Aerny-Perreten, Nicole
    Felicitas Dominguez-Berjon, Ma.
    Esteban-Vasallo, Maria D.
    Garcia-Riolobos, Carmen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2015, 21 (04) : 688 - 693
  • [2] Infection Fatality Ratios for COVID-19 Among Noninstitutionalized Persons 12 and Older: Results of a Random-Sample Prevalence Study
    Blackburn, Justin
    Yiannoutsos, Constantin T.
    Carroll, Aaron E.
    Halverson, Paul K.
    Menachemi, Nir
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2021, 174 (01) : 135 - 136
  • [3] The impact of non-response bias due to sampling in public health studies: A comparison of voluntary versus mandatory recruitment in a Dutch national survey on adolescent health
    Cheung, Kei Long
    ten Klooster, Peter M.
    Smit, Cees
    de Vries, Hein
    Pieterse, Marcel E.
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2017, 17
  • [4] Symptoms and symptom clusters associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in community-based populations: Results from a statewide epidemiological study
    Dixon, Brian E.
    Wools-Kaloustian, Kara K.
    Fadel, William F.
    Duszynski, Thomas J.
    Yiannoutsos, Constantin
    Halverson, Paul K.
    Menachemi, Nir
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (03):
  • [5] Association of Health Status and Nicotine Consumption with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates
    Duszynski, Thomas J.
    Fadel, William
    Wools-Kaloustian, Kara K.
    Dixon, Brian E.
    Yiannoutsos, Constantin
    Halverson, Paul K.
    Menachemi, Nir
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [6] Trust and transparency in times of crisis: Results from an online survey during the first wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK
    Enria, Luisa
    Waterlow, Naomi
    Rogers, Nina Trivedy
    Brindle, Hannah
    Lal, Sham
    Eggo, Rosalind M.
    Lees, Shelley
    Roberts, Chrissy h
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (02):
  • [7] Heidarian Miri Hamid, 2015, Glob J Health Sci, V8, P133, DOI 10.5539/gjhs.v8n1p133
  • [8] Indiana Essential Business and Operations List, 2020, ESS BUS OP EXC IND E
  • [9] Non-response bias in a sample survey on alcohol consumption
    Lahaut, VMHCJ
    Jansen, HAM
    van de Mheen, D
    Garretsen, HFL
    [J]. ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM, 2002, 37 (03): : 256 - 260
  • [10] Estimating the Effect of Nonresponse Bias in a Survey of Hospital Organizations
    Lewis, Emily F.
    Hardy, Maryann
    Snaith, Beverly
    [J]. EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2013, 36 (03) : 330 - 351