ArticleBMC research notes2013
Sex-differences in reasons for non-participation at recruitment: Geelong Osteoporosis Study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators for recruiting and retaining male participants into longitudinal health research: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of physical activity-based behaviour change interventions reaching men with prostate cancer.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2018Pooled it
- Quantifying personal exposure to traffic and household air pollution: a pilot study among street traders in Lagos, Nigeria.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Men's Perceptions of Non-Cancer Related Lymphoedema: A Qualitative Diary Study.Nursing & health sciences · 2025Article
- [Evaluation Of Dosage Errors During Mass Treatment Campaigns Targeting Lymphatic Filariasis And Onchocerciasis In The Health Districts Of Bougouni And Kolondièba, Mali].Le Mali medical · 2025Article
- Modifiable protective factors for mental health resilience in the offspring of depressed parents: A high-risk longitudinal cohort spanning adolescence and adulthood.JCPP advances · 2024Article
- Generalisability of and lessons learned from a mixed-methods study conducted in three low- and middle-income countries to identify care pathways for atrial fibrillation.Global health action · 2023Article
- Associations over the COVID-19 pandemic period and the mental health and substance use of youth not in employment, education or training in Ontario, Canada: a longitudinal, cohort study.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2023Article
- Sex Differences in the Feasibility of Aerobic Exercise Training for Improving Cardiometabolic Health Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Critically Ill Patients: Family Experiences of Interfacility Transfers From Rural to Urban Centers and Impact on Family Relationships.Journal of family nursing · 2023Article
- Cultural Knowledge in Context - People Aged 50 Years and Over Make Sense of a First Fracture and Osteoporosis.Journal of patient experience · 2023Article
- Occupation and 20-year hearing decline: findings from The HUNT Study.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Overweight/Obesity and Time Preference: Evidence from a Survey among Adults in the UK.Obesity facts · 2022Article
- Help-seeking intention among Chinese college students exposed to a natural disaster: an application of an extended theory of planned behavior (E-TPB).Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2021Article
- Altered brain structures in the dorsal and ventral language pathways in individuals with and without developmental language disorder (DLD).Brain imaging and behavior · 2020Article
- Reweighting to address nonparticipation and missing data bias in a longitudinal electronic health record study.Annals of epidemiology · 2020Article
- Normative Data for Impact Microindentation for Australian Men: Cross-Sectional Data From the Geelong Osteoporosis Study.JBMR plus · 2020Article
- Appropriating and asserting power on inflammatory arthritis teams: A social network perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Improving Understanding of Participation and Attrition Phenomena in European Cohort Studies: Protocol for a Multi-Situated Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Salt and potassium intake among adult Ghanaians: WHO-SAGE Ghana Wave 3.BMC nutrition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding reasons for non-participation in health studies can help guide recruitment strategies and inform researchers about potential sources of bias in their study sample. Whilst there is a paucity of literature regarding this issue, it remains highly plausible that men and women may have varied reasons for declining an invitation to participate in research. We aimed to investigate sex-differences in the reasons for non-participation at baseline of the Geelong Osteoporosis Study (GOS).
methodsThe GOS, a prospective cohort study, randomly recruited men and women aged 20 years and over from a region in south-eastern Australia using Commonwealth electoral rolls (2001-06 and 1993-97, respectively). Reasons for non-participation (n=1,200) were documented during the two recruitment periods. We used the Pearson's chi squared test to explore differences in the reasons for non-participation between men and women.
resultsNon-participation in the male cohort was greater than in the female cohort (32.9% vs. 22.9%; p<0.001). Overall, there were sex-differences in the reasons provided for non-participation (p<0.001); apparent differences related to time constraints (men 26.3% vs. women 10.4%), frailty/inability to cope with or understand the study (men 18.7% vs. women 30.6%), and reluctance over medical testing (men 1.1% vs women 9.9%). No sex-differences were observed for non-participation related to personal reason/disinterest, and language- or travel-related reasons.
conclusionsImproving participation rates in epidemiological studies may require different recruitment strategies for men and women in order to address sex-specific concerns about participating in research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.