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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of epidemiology 2006-02, Vol.163 (3), p.197-203 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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</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&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 & 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 & numerical data</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Subjects - psychology</subject><subject>Research Subjects - supply & 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 & 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 & numerical data</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Subjects - psychology</topic><topic>Research Subjects - supply & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |