Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30600508›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2019

Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse.

Suzanne C Hughes, Carol J Hogue, Melissa A Clark, Jessica E Graber, Elaine D Eaker, Amy H Herring, National Children’s Study

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Suzanne C HughesGraduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, 9245 Sky Park Court, Suite 102, San Diego, CA, 92123, USA. shughes@cbeachsdsu.org.
Carol J HogueRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Melissa A ClarkSchool of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Jessica E GraberEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20847, USA.
Elaine D EakerWESTAT, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
Amy H HerringDepartment of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health and Carolina Population Center, CB 7420, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
National Children’s Study

Funding

Science CoreP2CHD065563 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI James Moody · 2015 to 2026
$5.7M
NICHD NIH HHS HHSN267200700021CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275200503395CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275200800024CNICHD NIH HHS HHSN275201200021CNICHD NIH HHS P2C HD065563NIH HHS NICHD Contract(s) No: HHSN275200800024CNIH HHS NICHD Contract(s) No: HHSN275201200021CNIH HHS NICHD Contract(s) No: NICHD HHSN275200503411C/N01-HD-5-3411NIH HHS NICHD Contract(s) No: NIH-NICHD-HHSN267200700021C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPopulation-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility items on pregnancy screeners although they are critical to participant recruitment. This paper examined the patterns and respondent characteristics of key pregnancy screener items used in a large national study.

methodsCross-sectional analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine nonresponse patterns to three questions (currently pregnant, trying to get pregnant and able to get pregnant). The questions were asked of 50,529 women in 17 locations across the US, as part of eligibility screening for the National Children's Study Vanguard Study household-based recruitment.

resultsMost respondents were willing to provide information about current pregnancy, trying, and able to get pregnant: 99.3% of respondents answered all three questions and 97.4% provided meaningful answers. Nonresponse ranged from 0.3 to 2.5% for individual items. Multivariable logistic regression results identified small but statistically significant differences in nonresponse by respondent age, marital status, race/ethnicity-language, and household-based recruitment group. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: The high levels of response to pregnancy-related items are impressive considering that the eligibility questions were fairly sensitive, were administered at households, and were not part of a respondent-initiated encounter.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPregnancyResearch SubjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesChildrenItem nonresponseMissing dataNational Children’s StudyNonresponsePregnancy screenerPrenatalRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID30600508
PMCPMC6443242

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.