ArticleBMJ open2014
Random sample community-based health surveys: does the effort to reach participants matter?
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials.Cancers · 2023Review
- Process Evaluation of a Farm-to-WIC Intervention.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2021Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConducting health surveys with community-based random samples are essential to capture an otherwise unreachable population, but these surveys can be biased if the effort to reach participants is insufficient. This study determines the desirable amount of effort to minimise such bias.
designA household-based health survey with random sampling and face-to-face interviews. Up to 11 visits, organised by canvassing rounds, were made to obtain an interview.
settingSingle-family homes in an underserved and understudied population in North Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA.
participantsOf a probabilistic sample of 2200 household addresses, 30 corresponded to empty lots, 74 were abandoned houses, 625 households declined to participate and 265 could not be reached and interviewed within 11 attempts. Analyses were performed on the 1206 remaining households. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Each household was asked if any of their members had been told by a doctor that they had high blood pressure, heart disease including heart attack, cancer, diabetes, anxiety/ depression, obesity or asthma. Responses to these questions were analysed by the number of visit attempts needed to obtain the interview.
resultsReturn per visit fell below 10% after four attempts, below 5% after six attempts and below 2% after eight attempts. As the effort increased, household size decreased, while household income and the percentage of interviewees active and employed increased; proportion of the seven health conditions decreased, four of which did so significantly: heart disease 20.4-9.2%, high blood pressure 63.5-58.1%, anxiety/depression 24.4-9.2% and obesity 21.8-12.6%. Beyond the fifth attempt, however, cumulative percentages varied by less than 1% and precision varied by less than 0.1%.
conclusionsIn spite of the early and steep drop, sustaining at least five attempts to reach participants is necessary to reduce selection bias.
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.