ArticleF1000Research2016
Respondent driven sampling of wheelchair users: A lack of traction?
Article in F1000Research, 2016. 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.
- Design and implementation of a web-based, respondent-driven sampling solution.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Improving web-based respondent-driven sampling performance among men who have sex with men in the Netherlands.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Applications and Recruitment Performance of Web-Based Respondent-Driven Sampling: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternationally, wheelchair users are an emerging demographic phenomenon, due to their increased prevalence and rapidly increasing life-span. While having significant healthcare implications, basic robust epidemiological information about wheelchair users is often lacking due, in part, to this population's 'hidden' nature. Increasingly popular in epidemiological research, Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) provides a mechanism for generating unbiased population-based estimates for hard-to-reach populations, overcoming biases inherent within other sampling methods. This paper reports the first published study to employ RDS amongst wheelchair users.
methodsBetween October 2015 and January 2016, a short, successfully piloted, internet-based national survey was initiated. Twenty seeds from diverse organisations were invited to complete the survey then circulate it to peers within their networks following a well-defined protocol. A predetermined reminder protocol was triggered when seeds or their peers failed to respond. All participants were entered into a draw for an iPad.
resultsOverall, 19 people participated (nine women); 12 initial seeds, followed by seven second-wave participants arising from four seeds . Completion time for the survey ranged between 7 and 36 minutes. Despite repeated reminders, no further people were recruited. DISCUSSION: While New Zealand wheelchair user numbers are unknown, an estimated 14% of people have physical impairments that limited mobility. The 19 respondents generated from adopting the RDS methodology here thus represents a negligible fraction of wheelchair users in New Zealand, and an insufficient number to ensure equilibrium required for unbiased analyses. While successful in other hard-to-reach populations, applying RDS methodology to wheelchair users requires further consideration. Formative research exploring areas of network characteristics, acceptability of RDS, appropriate incentive options, and seed selection amongst wheelchair users is needed.
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.