Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17655756›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2007

Methods and representativeness of a European survey in children and adolescents: the KIDSCREEN study.

Silvina Berra, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Michael Erhart, Cristian Tebé, Corinna Bisegger, Wolfgang Duer, Ursula von Rueden, Michael Herdman, Jordi Alonso, Luis Rajmil and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Gender Differences for Health Indicators in a Sample of School Dropout Adolescents: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Well-Being Perception during COVID-19 Pandemic in Healthy Adolescents: From the Avatar Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Silvina BerraAgency for Quality, Research and Assessment in Health (AQuRA Health, formerly Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research), Barcelona, Spain. sberra@aatrm.catsalut.net
Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
Michael Erhart
Cristian Tebé
Corinna Bisegger
Wolfgang Duer
Ursula von Rueden
Michael Herdman
Jordi Alonso
Luis Rajmil
European KIDSCREEN group [kidscreen]

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of the present study was to compare three different sampling and questionnaire administration methods used in the international KIDSCREEN study in terms of participation, response rates, and external validity.

methodsChildren and adolescents aged 8-18 years were surveyed in 13 European countries using either telephone sampling and mail administration, random sampling of school listings followed by classroom or mail administration, or multistage random sampling of communities and households with self-administration of the survey materials at home. Cooperation, completion, and response rates were compared across countries and survey methods. Data on non-respondents was collected in 8 countries. The population fraction (PF, respondents in each sex-age, or educational level category, divided by the population in the same category from Eurostat census data) and population fraction ratio (PFR, ratio of PF) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were used to analyze differences by country between the KIDSCREEN samples and a reference Eurostat population.

resultsResponse rates by country ranged from 18.9% to 91.2%. Response rates were highest in the school-based surveys (69.0%-91.2%). Sample proportions by age and gender were similar to the reference Eurostat population in most countries, although boys and adolescents were slightly underrepresented (PFR <1). Parents in lower educational categories were less likely to participate (PFR <1 in 5 countries). Parents in higher educational categories were overrepresented when the school and household sampling strategies were used (PFR = 1.78-2.97).

conclusionSchool-based sampling achieved the highest overall response rates but also produced slightly more biased samples than the other methods. The results suggest that the samples were sufficiently representative to provide reference population values for the KIDSCREEN instrument.

Indexed as

Health SurveysQuality of LifeAdolescentChildEuropeFemaleHealth StatusHumansInterviews as TopicMalePsychometricsSchoolsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID17655756
PMCPMC1976616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.