ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2018
Identification of Homophily and Preferential Recruitment in Respondent-Driven Sampling.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Syringe service program utilization, behavioral, and experiential factors associated with greater naloxone protection in a longitudinal cohort of people who use illicit opioids in New York city.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
- HIV and syphilis seroprevalence and related unsafe sexual behaviours among people who inject drugs in Georgia: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Inferring bivariate associations with continuous data from studies using respondent-driven sampling.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2025Article
- Prevalence and predictors of condom use among people who inject drugs in Georgia.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Hidden Population Estimation with Indirect Inference and Auxiliary Information.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2024Article
- Integration of a geospatially targeted community-based testing approach with respondent-driven sampling to identify people who inject drugs living with HIV and HCV in Patti and Gorakhpur, India.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2023Article
- Methods for Assessing Spillover in Network-Based Studies of HIV/AIDS Prevention among People Who Use Drugs.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Sociodemographic characteristics and HIV risk behaviors of native-born and displaced Syrian men and transgender women who have sex with men in Lebanon.AIDS and behavior · 2022Article
- General regression methods for respondent-driven sampling data.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021Article
- A comparison of the effectiveness of respondent-driven and venue-based sampling for identifying undiagnosed HIV infection among cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women in Tijuana, Mexico.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2021Article
- Divergent estimates of HIV incidence among people who inject drugs in Ukraine.The International journal on drug policy · 2019Article
- Causal Inference Under Interference And Network Uncertainty.Uncertainty in artificial intelligence : proceedings of the ... conference. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence · 2019Article
- Empirical evidence of recruitment bias in a network study of people who inject drugs.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2019Article
- A SIMULATION-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE FEASIBILITY OF RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING FOR ESTIMATING CHARACTERISTICS IN POPULATIONS OF LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL OLDER ADULTS.The annals of applied statistics · 2018Article
- Social network methods for HIV case-finding among people who inject drugs in Tajikistan.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2018Article
- Overlooked Threats to Respondent Driven Sampling Estimators: Peer Recruitment Reality, Degree Measures, and Random Selection Assumption.AIDS and behavior · 2018Article
- Social Network Clustering and the Spread of HIV/AIDS Among Persons Who Inject Drugs in 2 Cities in the Philippines.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2017Article
- NEW SURVEY QUESTIONS AND ESTIMATORS FOR NETWORK CLUSTERING WITH RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING DATA.Sociological methodology · 2017Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a link-tracing procedure used in epidemiologic research on hidden or hard-to-reach populations in which subjects recruit others via their social networks. Estimates from RDS studies may have poor statistical properties due to statistical dependence in sampled subjects' traits. Two distinct mechanisms account for dependence in an RDS study: homophily, the tendency for individuals to share social ties with others exhibiting similar characteristics, and preferential recruitment, in which recruiters do not recruit uniformly at random from their network alters. The different effects of network homophily and preferential recruitment in RDS studies have been a source of confusion and controversy in methodological and empirical research in epidemiology. In this work, we gave formal definitions of homophily and preferential recruitment and showed that neither is identified in typical RDS studies. We derived nonparametric identification regions for homophily and preferential recruitment and showed that these parameters were not identified unless the network took a degenerate form. The results indicated that claims of homophily or recruitment bias measured from empirical RDS studies may not be credible. We applied our identification results to a study involving both a network census and RDS on a population of injection drug users in Hartford, Connecticut (2012-2013).
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.