Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice

Self-selection bias may threaten the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. Studies with a low level of participation are particularly vulnerable to this bias, and commentators note apparent declines in participation in recent years. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review to sur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of epidemiology 2006-02, Vol.163 (3), p.197-203
Hauptverfasser: Morton, Lindsay M., Cahill, Jack, Hartge, Patricia
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 203
container_issue 3
container_start_page 197
container_title American journal of epidemiology
container_volume 163
creator Morton, Lindsay M.
Cahill, Jack
Hartge, Patricia
description Self-selection bias may threaten the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. Studies with a low level of participation are particularly vulnerable to this bias, and commentators note apparent declines in participation in recent years. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review to survey the practice of reporting participation in epidemiologic studies, to assess changes in participation over time, and to evaluate the impact of increased biologic specimen collection on participation. The authors abstracted selected study characteristics from 355 peer-reviewed, original, analytic-epidemiology research articles published from January 1 to April 30, 2003, in 10 high-impact general epidemiology, public health, and medical journals. At least some information regarding participation was provided in 59% of cross-sectional studies, 44% of case-control studies, and 32% of cohort studies. Participation appears to have declined during 1970–2003 for all study designs. Participation declined most steeply for controls in population-based, case-control studies (−1.86% per year, 95% confidence interval: −3.03, −0.69), with steeper declines after 1990. Proportionately more studies collected biologic specimens over time, particularly for cohort and case-control study designs (ptrend = 0.06 and 0.03, respectively), yet participation was reported separately for the biologic specimen study component in only 27% of studies. The authors conclude that epidemiologists need to address declining participation and to report participation consistently, including for biologic specimen collection.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/aje/kwj036
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70689619</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70689619</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9fbdecb487d7582841f1b17b701af0115bc27777218e7b379a9907fac82c0a4c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0FtLHTEQB_BQKnpqffEDyFJoHwqrk2Rz8-0gXopKvVQQX0I2m5Uc92y2yW6r374p56DgvMzD_GYY_gjtYtjHoOiBWbiDp78LoPwDmuFK8JITxj-iGQCQUhFOttCnlBYAGCsGm2gLc0oVVGqGTm7cEOLo-8fiyuRu_WBGH_rC98Xx4Bu39KELj94Wt-PUeJcOi3lxO8U_7qUIbXEVjc1L7jPaaE2X3M66b6O7k-NfR2flxc_TH0fzi9JWkoylauvG2bqSohFMElnhFtdY1AKwafN3rLZE5CJYOlFToYxSIFpjJbFgKku30bfV3SGG35NLo176ZF3Xmd6FKWkBXCqOVYZf3sFFmGKff9OEMlkpYCyj7ytkY0gpulYP0S9NfNEY9P9odY5Wr6LNeG99caqXrnmj6ywz-LoGJlnTtdH01qc3JxgoTCG7cuV8Gt3z69zEJ80FFUyf3T_oe3l5fUnPzzWm_wCirY_0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>235849055</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Morton, Lindsay M. ; Cahill, Jack ; Hartge, Patricia</creator><creatorcontrib>Morton, Lindsay M. ; Cahill, Jack ; Hartge, Patricia</creatorcontrib><description>Self-selection bias may threaten the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. Studies with a low level of participation are particularly vulnerable to this bias, and commentators note apparent declines in participation in recent years. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review to survey the practice of reporting participation in epidemiologic studies, to assess changes in participation over time, and to evaluate the impact of increased biologic specimen collection on participation. The authors abstracted selected study characteristics from 355 peer-reviewed, original, analytic-epidemiology research articles published from January 1 to April 30, 2003, in 10 high-impact general epidemiology, public health, and medical journals. At least some information regarding participation was provided in 59% of cross-sectional studies, 44% of case-control studies, and 32% of cohort studies. Participation appears to have declined during 1970–2003 for all study designs. Participation declined most steeply for controls in population-based, case-control studies (−1.86% per year, 95% confidence interval: −3.03, −0.69), with steeper declines after 1990. Proportionately more studies collected biologic specimens over time, particularly for cohort and case-control study designs (ptrend = 0.06 and 0.03, respectively), yet participation was reported separately for the biologic specimen study component in only 27% of studies. The authors conclude that epidemiologists need to address declining participation and to report participation consistently, including for biologic specimen collection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9262</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-6256</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj036</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16339049</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJEPAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cary, NC: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Analysis. Health state ; Bias ; Bibliometrics ; Biological and medical sciences ; blood specimen collection ; case-control studies ; cohort studies ; confidence interval ; cross-sectional studies ; Data Collection ; epidemiologic methods ; Epidemiologic Research Design ; Epidemiology ; General aspects ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Participation ; patient participation ; Patient Selection ; Periodicals as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Refusal to Participate - psychology ; Refusal to Participate - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Subjects - psychology ; Research Subjects - supply &amp; distribution ; Retrospective Studies ; Selection Bias ; Time Factors ; Validity</subject><ispartof>American journal of epidemiology, 2006-02, Vol.163 (3), p.197-203</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press(England) Feb 1, 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9fbdecb487d7582841f1b17b701af0115bc27777218e7b379a9907fac82c0a4c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9fbdecb487d7582841f1b17b701af0115bc27777218e7b379a9907fac82c0a4c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17509130$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16339049$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Morton, Lindsay M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cahill, Jack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartge, Patricia</creatorcontrib><title>Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice</title><title>American journal of epidemiology</title><addtitle>Am. J. Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Self-selection bias may threaten the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. Studies with a low level of participation are particularly vulnerable to this bias, and commentators note apparent declines in participation in recent years. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review to survey the practice of reporting participation in epidemiologic studies, to assess changes in participation over time, and to evaluate the impact of increased biologic specimen collection on participation. The authors abstracted selected study characteristics from 355 peer-reviewed, original, analytic-epidemiology research articles published from January 1 to April 30, 2003, in 10 high-impact general epidemiology, public health, and medical journals. At least some information regarding participation was provided in 59% of cross-sectional studies, 44% of case-control studies, and 32% of cohort studies. Participation appears to have declined during 1970–2003 for all study designs. Participation declined most steeply for controls in population-based, case-control studies (−1.86% per year, 95% confidence interval: −3.03, −0.69), with steeper declines after 1990. Proportionately more studies collected biologic specimens over time, particularly for cohort and case-control study designs (ptrend = 0.06 and 0.03, respectively), yet participation was reported separately for the biologic specimen study component in only 27% of studies. The authors conclude that epidemiologists need to address declining participation and to report participation consistently, including for biologic specimen collection.</description><subject>Analysis. Health state</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>blood specimen collection</subject><subject>case-control studies</subject><subject>cohort studies</subject><subject>confidence interval</subject><subject>cross-sectional studies</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>epidemiologic methods</subject><subject>Epidemiologic Research Design</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>patient participation</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Refusal to Participate - psychology</subject><subject>Refusal to Participate - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Subjects - psychology</subject><subject>Research Subjects - supply &amp; distribution</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Selection Bias</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0002-9262</issn><issn>1476-6256</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0FtLHTEQB_BQKnpqffEDyFJoHwqrk2Rz8-0gXopKvVQQX0I2m5Uc92y2yW6r374p56DgvMzD_GYY_gjtYtjHoOiBWbiDp78LoPwDmuFK8JITxj-iGQCQUhFOttCnlBYAGCsGm2gLc0oVVGqGTm7cEOLo-8fiyuRu_WBGH_rC98Xx4Bu39KELj94Wt-PUeJcOi3lxO8U_7qUIbXEVjc1L7jPaaE2X3M66b6O7k-NfR2flxc_TH0fzi9JWkoylauvG2bqSohFMElnhFtdY1AKwafN3rLZE5CJYOlFToYxSIFpjJbFgKku30bfV3SGG35NLo176ZF3Xmd6FKWkBXCqOVYZf3sFFmGKff9OEMlkpYCyj7ytkY0gpulYP0S9NfNEY9P9odY5Wr6LNeG99caqXrnmj6ywz-LoGJlnTtdH01qc3JxgoTCG7cuV8Gt3z69zEJ80FFUyf3T_oe3l5fUnPzzWm_wCirY_0</recordid><startdate>20060201</startdate><enddate>20060201</enddate><creator>Morton, Lindsay M.</creator><creator>Cahill, Jack</creator><creator>Hartge, Patricia</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060201</creationdate><title>Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice</title><author>Morton, Lindsay M. ; Cahill, Jack ; Hartge, Patricia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9fbdecb487d7582841f1b17b701af0115bc27777218e7b379a9907fac82c0a4c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Analysis. Health state</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>blood specimen collection</topic><topic>case-control studies</topic><topic>cohort studies</topic><topic>confidence interval</topic><topic>cross-sectional studies</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>epidemiologic methods</topic><topic>Epidemiologic Research Design</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>patient participation</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Refusal to Participate - psychology</topic><topic>Refusal to Participate - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Subjects - psychology</topic><topic>Research Subjects - supply &amp; distribution</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Selection Bias</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Morton, Lindsay M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cahill, Jack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartge, Patricia</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Morton, Lindsay M.</au><au>Cahill, Jack</au><au>Hartge, Patricia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice</atitle><jtitle>American journal of epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Am. J. Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2006-02-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>163</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>197</spage><epage>203</epage><pages>197-203</pages><issn>0002-9262</issn><eissn>1476-6256</eissn><coden>AJEPAS</coden><abstract>Self-selection bias may threaten the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. Studies with a low level of participation are particularly vulnerable to this bias, and commentators note apparent declines in participation in recent years. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review to survey the practice of reporting participation in epidemiologic studies, to assess changes in participation over time, and to evaluate the impact of increased biologic specimen collection on participation. The authors abstracted selected study characteristics from 355 peer-reviewed, original, analytic-epidemiology research articles published from January 1 to April 30, 2003, in 10 high-impact general epidemiology, public health, and medical journals. At least some information regarding participation was provided in 59% of cross-sectional studies, 44% of case-control studies, and 32% of cohort studies. Participation appears to have declined during 1970–2003 for all study designs. Participation declined most steeply for controls in population-based, case-control studies (−1.86% per year, 95% confidence interval: −3.03, −0.69), with steeper declines after 1990. Proportionately more studies collected biologic specimens over time, particularly for cohort and case-control study designs (ptrend = 0.06 and 0.03, respectively), yet participation was reported separately for the biologic specimen study component in only 27% of studies. The authors conclude that epidemiologists need to address declining participation and to report participation consistently, including for biologic specimen collection.</abstract><cop>Cary, NC</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>16339049</pmid><doi>10.1093/aje/kwj036</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9262
ispartof American journal of epidemiology, 2006-02, Vol.163 (3), p.197-203
issn 0002-9262
1476-6256
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70689619
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Analysis. Health state
Bias
Bibliometrics
Biological and medical sciences
blood specimen collection
case-control studies
cohort studies
confidence interval
cross-sectional studies
Data Collection
epidemiologic methods
Epidemiologic Research Design
Epidemiology
General aspects
Humans
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
Participation
patient participation
Patient Selection
Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Refusal to Participate - psychology
Refusal to Participate - statistics & numerical data
Reproducibility of Results
Research Subjects - psychology
Research Subjects - supply & distribution
Retrospective Studies
Selection Bias
Time Factors
Validity
title Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T17%3A52%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reporting%20Participation%20in%20Epidemiologic%20Studies:%20A%20Survey%20of%20Practice&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20epidemiology&rft.au=Morton,%20Lindsay%20M.&rft.date=2006-02-01&rft.volume=163&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=197&rft.epage=203&rft.pages=197-203&rft.issn=0002-9262&rft.eissn=1476-6256&rft.coden=AJEPAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/aje/kwj036&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70689619%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=235849055&rft_id=info:pmid/16339049&rfr_iscdi=true