Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse
Objectives Population-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility it...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Maternal and child health journal 2019-03, Vol.23 (3), p.316-324 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 324 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 316 |
container_title | Maternal and child health journal |
container_volume | 23 |
creator | Hughes, Suzanne C. Hogue, Carol J. Clark, Melissa A. Graber, Jessica E. Eaker, Elaine D. Herring, Amy H. |
description | Objectives
Population-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility items on pregnancy screeners although they are critical to participant recruitment. This paper examined the patterns and respondent characteristics of key pregnancy screener items used in a large national study.
Methods
Cross-sectional analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine nonresponse patterns to three questions (currently pregnant, trying to get pregnant and able to get pregnant). The questions were asked of 50,529 women in 17 locations across the US, as part of eligibility screening for the National Children’s Study Vanguard Study household-based recruitment.
Results
Most respondents were willing to provide information about current pregnancy, trying, and able to get pregnant: 99.3% of respondents answered all three questions and 97.4% provided meaningful answers. Nonresponse ranged from 0.3 to 2.5% for individual items. Multivariable logistic regression results identified small but statistically significant differences in nonresponse by respondent age, marital status, race/ethnicity-language, and household-based recruitment group.
Conclusions for Practice
The high levels of response to pregnancy-related items are impressive considering that the eligibility questions were fairly sensitive, were administered at households, and were not part of a respondent-initiated encounter. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10995-018-2665-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6443242</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A576428347</galeid><sourcerecordid>A576428347</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c606t-195e4b3c3c78bb69e92453267393521f83fe11938b908cb5a439bf68e131150b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kttu1DAQhiMEogd4AG6QJSTUmxQfEtvhAmlZcahUQaWFa8vxTrKuEnuxHVDfHoctbRct8oVHnm9-e8Z_Ubwg-JxgLN5EgpumLjGRJeU8B4-KY1ILVnJO5eMc44aWQor6qDiJ8RrjXIWrp8URwxzjGsvjYlyZAOCs61HnA7oK0DvtzA1aJZ2miKxDGl357TToZL0r3-sIa7TS43aAt2i50UGbBMHGZE1Eixi9sTpl5JdNG3SRYERfvAsQt95FeFY86fQQ4fntflp8__jh2_Jzefn108VycVkajnkqSVND1TLDjJBtyxtoaFUzygVrWE1JJ1kHhDRMtg2Wpq11xZq24xIII6TGLTst3u10t1M7wtqAS0EPahvsqMON8tqq_YyzG9X7n4pXFaMVzQJntwLB_5ggJjXaaGAYtAM_RUUJp0IIJkVGX_2DXvspuNzeH4pyyit8T_V6AGVd5_O9ZhZVi1rwikpWzVrlAaoHB_mR3kFn8_Eef36Az2sNozUHC14_KNiAHtIm-mGa_zbug2QHmuBjDNDdDY9gNZtP7cynsvnUbD419_jy4dTvKv66LQN0B8Sccj2E-1H9X_U3ec3iMw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2162262640</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Hughes, Suzanne C. ; Hogue, Carol J. ; Clark, Melissa A. ; Graber, Jessica E. ; Eaker, Elaine D. ; Herring, Amy H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Suzanne C. ; Hogue, Carol J. ; Clark, Melissa A. ; Graber, Jessica E. ; Eaker, Elaine D. ; Herring, Amy H. ; National Children’s Study ; the National Children’s Study</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
Population-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility items on pregnancy screeners although they are critical to participant recruitment. This paper examined the patterns and respondent characteristics of key pregnancy screener items used in a large national study.
Methods
Cross-sectional analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine nonresponse patterns to three questions (currently pregnant, trying to get pregnant and able to get pregnant). The questions were asked of 50,529 women in 17 locations across the US, as part of eligibility screening for the National Children’s Study Vanguard Study household-based recruitment.
Results
Most respondents were willing to provide information about current pregnancy, trying, and able to get pregnant: 99.3% of respondents answered all three questions and 97.4% provided meaningful answers. Nonresponse ranged from 0.3 to 2.5% for individual items. Multivariable logistic regression results identified small but statistically significant differences in nonresponse by respondent age, marital status, race/ethnicity-language, and household-based recruitment group.
Conclusions for Practice
The high levels of response to pregnancy-related items are impressive considering that the eligibility questions were fairly sensitive, were administered at households, and were not part of a respondent-initiated encounter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1092-7875</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-6628</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10995-018-2665-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30600508</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Analysis ; Choice Behavior ; Cohort Studies ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Gynecology ; Health aspects ; Health screening ; Households ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Logistic regression ; Mass Screening - methods ; Mass Screening - standards ; Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data ; Maternal and Child Health ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Missing data ; Pediatrics ; Population Economics ; Population-based studies ; Pregnancy ; Pregnant women ; Public Health ; Research Subjects - psychology ; Research Subjects - statistics & numerical data ; Sociology ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data ; United States ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>Maternal and child health journal, 2019-03, Vol.23 (3), p.316-324</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Springer</rights><rights>Maternal and Child Health Journal is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c606t-195e4b3c3c78bb69e92453267393521f83fe11938b908cb5a439bf68e131150b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c606t-195e4b3c3c78bb69e92453267393521f83fe11938b908cb5a439bf68e131150b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10995-018-2665-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10995-018-2665-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30600508$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Suzanne C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogue, Carol J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Melissa A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graber, Jessica E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eaker, Elaine D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, Amy H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Children’s Study</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>the National Children’s Study</creatorcontrib><title>Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse</title><title>Maternal and child health journal</title><addtitle>Matern Child Health J</addtitle><addtitle>Matern Child Health J</addtitle><description>Objectives
Population-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility items on pregnancy screeners although they are critical to participant recruitment. This paper examined the patterns and respondent characteristics of key pregnancy screener items used in a large national study.
Methods
Cross-sectional analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine nonresponse patterns to three questions (currently pregnant, trying to get pregnant and able to get pregnant). The questions were asked of 50,529 women in 17 locations across the US, as part of eligibility screening for the National Children’s Study Vanguard Study household-based recruitment.
Results
Most respondents were willing to provide information about current pregnancy, trying, and able to get pregnant: 99.3% of respondents answered all three questions and 97.4% provided meaningful answers. Nonresponse ranged from 0.3 to 2.5% for individual items. Multivariable logistic regression results identified small but statistically significant differences in nonresponse by respondent age, marital status, race/ethnicity-language, and household-based recruitment group.
Conclusions for Practice
The high levels of response to pregnancy-related items are impressive considering that the eligibility questions were fairly sensitive, were administered at households, and were not part of a respondent-initiated encounter.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health screening</subject><subject>Households</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Logistic regression</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - standards</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Maternal and Child Health</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Missing data</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Population Economics</subject><subject>Population-based studies</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnant women</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Research Subjects - psychology</subject><subject>Research Subjects - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1092-7875</issn><issn>1573-6628</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kttu1DAQhiMEogd4AG6QJSTUmxQfEtvhAmlZcahUQaWFa8vxTrKuEnuxHVDfHoctbRct8oVHnm9-e8Z_Ubwg-JxgLN5EgpumLjGRJeU8B4-KY1ILVnJO5eMc44aWQor6qDiJ8RrjXIWrp8URwxzjGsvjYlyZAOCs61HnA7oK0DvtzA1aJZ2miKxDGl357TToZL0r3-sIa7TS43aAt2i50UGbBMHGZE1Eixi9sTpl5JdNG3SRYERfvAsQt95FeFY86fQQ4fntflp8__jh2_Jzefn108VycVkajnkqSVND1TLDjJBtyxtoaFUzygVrWE1JJ1kHhDRMtg2Wpq11xZq24xIII6TGLTst3u10t1M7wtqAS0EPahvsqMON8tqq_YyzG9X7n4pXFaMVzQJntwLB_5ggJjXaaGAYtAM_RUUJp0IIJkVGX_2DXvspuNzeH4pyyit8T_V6AGVd5_O9ZhZVi1rwikpWzVrlAaoHB_mR3kFn8_Eef36Az2sNozUHC14_KNiAHtIm-mGa_zbug2QHmuBjDNDdDY9gNZtP7cynsvnUbD419_jy4dTvKv66LQN0B8Sccj2E-1H9X_U3ec3iMw</recordid><startdate>20190301</startdate><enddate>20190301</enddate><creator>Hughes, Suzanne C.</creator><creator>Hogue, Carol J.</creator><creator>Clark, Melissa A.</creator><creator>Graber, Jessica E.</creator><creator>Eaker, Elaine D.</creator><creator>Herring, Amy H.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><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>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190301</creationdate><title>Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse</title><author>Hughes, Suzanne C. ; Hogue, Carol J. ; Clark, Melissa A. ; Graber, Jessica E. ; Eaker, Elaine D. ; Herring, Amy H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c606t-195e4b3c3c78bb69e92453267393521f83fe11938b908cb5a439bf68e131150b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health screening</topic><topic>Households</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Logistic regression</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - standards</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Maternal and Child Health</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Missing data</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Population Economics</topic><topic>Population-based studies</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnant women</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Research Subjects - psychology</topic><topic>Research Subjects - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Suzanne C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogue, Carol J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Melissa A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graber, Jessica E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eaker, Elaine D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, Amy H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Children’s Study</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>the National Children’s Study</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Maternal and child health journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hughes, Suzanne C.</au><au>Hogue, Carol J.</au><au>Clark, Melissa A.</au><au>Graber, Jessica E.</au><au>Eaker, Elaine D.</au><au>Herring, Amy H.</au><aucorp>National Children’s Study</aucorp><aucorp>the National Children’s Study</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse</atitle><jtitle>Maternal and child health journal</jtitle><stitle>Matern Child Health J</stitle><addtitle>Matern Child Health J</addtitle><date>2019-03-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>316</spage><epage>324</epage><pages>316-324</pages><issn>1092-7875</issn><eissn>1573-6628</eissn><abstract>Objectives
Population-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility items on pregnancy screeners although they are critical to participant recruitment. This paper examined the patterns and respondent characteristics of key pregnancy screener items used in a large national study.
Methods
Cross-sectional analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine nonresponse patterns to three questions (currently pregnant, trying to get pregnant and able to get pregnant). The questions were asked of 50,529 women in 17 locations across the US, as part of eligibility screening for the National Children’s Study Vanguard Study household-based recruitment.
Results
Most respondents were willing to provide information about current pregnancy, trying, and able to get pregnant: 99.3% of respondents answered all three questions and 97.4% provided meaningful answers. Nonresponse ranged from 0.3 to 2.5% for individual items. Multivariable logistic regression results identified small but statistically significant differences in nonresponse by respondent age, marital status, race/ethnicity-language, and household-based recruitment group.
Conclusions for Practice
The high levels of response to pregnancy-related items are impressive considering that the eligibility questions were fairly sensitive, were administered at households, and were not part of a respondent-initiated encounter.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>30600508</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10995-018-2665-0</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1092-7875 |
ispartof | Maternal and child health journal, 2019-03, Vol.23 (3), p.316-324 |
issn | 1092-7875 1573-6628 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6443242 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Analysis Choice Behavior Cohort Studies Cross-Sectional Studies Epidemiology Female Gynecology Health aspects Health screening Households Humans Logistic Models Logistic regression Mass Screening - methods Mass Screening - standards Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data Maternal and Child Health Medical screening Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Missing data Pediatrics Population Economics Population-based studies Pregnancy Pregnant women Public Health Research Subjects - psychology Research Subjects - statistics & numerical data Sociology Studies Surveys and Questionnaires - standards Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data United States Womens health |
title | Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T13%3A18%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Screening%20for%20Pregnancy%20Status%20in%20a%20Population-Based%20Sample:%20Characteristics%20Associated%20with%20Item%20Nonresponse&rft.jtitle=Maternal%20and%20child%20health%20journal&rft.au=Hughes,%20Suzanne%20C.&rft.aucorp=National%20Children%E2%80%99s%20Study&rft.date=2019-03-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=316&rft.epage=324&rft.pages=316-324&rft.issn=1092-7875&rft.eissn=1573-6628&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10995-018-2665-0&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA576428347%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2162262640&rft_id=info:pmid/30600508&rft_galeid=A576428347&rfr_iscdi=true |