ArticleScandinavian journal of public health2019
Adjusting for non-response in the Finnish Drinking Habits Survey.
Article in Scandinavian journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Industrial odour pollution and human health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021Pooled it
- Effective alcohol policies are associated with reduced consumption among demographic groups who drink heavily.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2023Article
- Characteristics of the Washington cannabis market from 2014 to 2016.Journal of cannabis research · 2022Article
- The impact of non-response weighting in health surveys for estimates on primary health care utilization.European journal of public health · 2022Article
- Improving Estimates of Alcohol-Attributable Deaths in the United States: Impact of Adjusting for the Underreporting of Alcohol Consumption.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2022Article
- Drinking patterns among Finns aged 60 years and over from the 1990s onwards.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe aim to compare four different weighting methods to adjust for non-response in a survey on drinking habits and to examine whether the problem of under-coverage of survey estimates of alcohol use could be remedied by these methods in comparison to sales statistics.
methodThe data from a general population survey of Finns aged 15-79 years in 2016 ( n=2285, response rate 60%) were used. Outcome measures were the annual volume of drinking and prevalence of hazardous drinking. A wide range of sociodemographic and regional variables from registers were available to model the non-response. Response propensities were modelled using logistic regression and random forest models to derive two sets of refined weights in addition to design weights and basic post-stratification weights.
resultsEstimated annual consumption changed from 2.43 litres of 100% alcohol using design weights to 2.36-2.44 when using the other three weights and the estimated prevalence of hazardous drinkers changed from 11.4% to 11.4-11.8%, correspondingly. The use of weights derived by the random forest method generally provided smaller estimates than use of the logistic regression-based weights.
conclusionsThe use of complex non-response weights derived from the logistic regression model or random forest are not likely to provide much added value over more simple weights in surveys on alcohol use. Surveys may not catch heavy drinkers and therefore are prone for under-reporting of alcohol use at the population level. Also, factors other than sociodemographic characteristics are likely to influence participation decisions.
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.