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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Maternal and child health journal 2019-03, Vol.23 (3), p.316-324
Hauptverfasser: Hughes, Suzanne C., Hogue, Carol J., Clark, Melissa A., Graber, Jessica E., Eaker, Elaine D., Herring, Amy H.
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 &amp; numerical data ; Maternal and Child Health ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Missing data ; Pediatrics ; Population Economics ; Population-based studies ; Pregnancy ; Pregnant women ; Public Health ; Research Subjects - psychology ; Research Subjects - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Sociology ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Maternal and Child Health</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Maternal and Child Health</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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