Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29120828›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology2017

The efficacy of respondent-driven sampling for the health assessment of minority populations.

Grazyna Badowski, Lilnabeth P Somera, Brayan Simsiman, Hye-Ryeon Lee, Kevin Cassel, Alisha Yamanaka, JunHao Ren

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Knowledge and Attitudes of Guam Residents towards Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Grazyna BadowskiUniversity of Guam, College of Natural & Applied Sciences, 303 University Drive, Mangilao, Guam 96923, United States.
Lilnabeth P SomeraUniversity of Guam, Division of Communication and Fine Arts, 303 University Drive, Mangilao, Guam 96923, United States. Electronic address: lpsomera@triton.uog.edu.
Brayan SimsimanUniversity of Guam, Cancer Research Center, 303 University Drive, Mangilao, Guam 96923, United States.
Hye-Ryeon LeeUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Communicology, 2560 Campus Road, George 329, Honolulu, HI 96822, United States.
Kevin CasselUniversity of Hawaii Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St., Honolulu, HI 96813, United States.
Alisha YamanakaUniversity of Guam, Cancer Research Center, 303 University Drive, Mangilao, Guam 96923, United States.
JunHao RenUniversity of Guam, Cancer Research Center, 303 University Drive, Mangilao, Guam 96923, United States.
University of Guam · GUUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · USUniversity of Hawaii System · US

Funding

University of Guam/Cancer Research Center of Hawaii Partnership (2 of 2)U54CA143728 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF GUAM · PI Laura Biggs · 2009 to 2026
$20.1M
University of Guam/Cancer Research Center of Hawaii Partnership (1 of 2)U54CA143727 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI LYNNE R WILKENS · 2009 to 2026
$19.1M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA143727NCI NIH HHS U54 CA143728
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespondent driven sampling (RDS) is a relatively new network sampling technique typically employed for hard-to-reach populations. Like snowball sampling, initial respondents or "seeds" recruit additional respondents from their network of friends. Under certain assumptions, the method promises to produce a sample independent from the biases that may have been introduced by the non-random choice of "seeds." We conducted a survey on health communication in Guam's general population using the RDS method, the first survey that has utilized this methodology in Guam. It was conducted in hopes of identifying a cost-efficient non-probability sampling strategy that could generate reasonable population estimates for both minority and general populations.

methodsRDS data was collected in Guam in 2013 (n=511) and population estimates were compared with 2012 BRFSS data (n=2031) and the 2010 census data. The estimates were calculated using the unweighted RDS sample and the weighted sample using RDS inference methods and compared with known population characteristics.

resultsThe sample size was reached in 23days, providing evidence that the RDS method is a viable, cost-effective data collection method, which can provide reasonable population estimates. However, the results also suggest that the RDS inference methods used to reduce bias, based on self-reported estimates of network sizes, may not always work. Caution is needed when interpreting RDS study findings.

conclusionsFor a more diverse sample, data collection should not be conducted in just one location. Fewer questions about network estimates should be asked, and more careful consideration should be given to the kind of incentives offered to participants.

Indexed as

Health StatusAdultBiasFemaleGuamHealth SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinority GroupsNative Hawaiian or Pacific IslanderSampling StudiesYoung AdultChamorroFederated States of MicronesiaGuamHealth communicationMicronesiansPacific IslandersRespondent-driven sampling

Identifiers

PMID29120828
PMCPMC6026110
OpenAlexW2767870275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.