ArticleBMJ open2019
Analysis of non-respondent pregnant women who were registered in the Japan Environment and Children's Study: a longitudinal cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Provision of educational events and subsequent questionnaire response rates in a large-scale birth cohort study from Japan.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- Maternal alcohol consumption and risk of offspring with congenital malformation: the Japan Environment and Children's Study.Pediatric research · 2021Article
- Uncovering survivorship bias in longitudinal mental health surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNon-response to questionnaires in a longitudinal study reduces the effective sample size and introduces bias. We identified the characteristics of non-respondent pregnant women, and compared them with respondents in the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS) during the gestational period.
designThis was a questionnaire-based, longitudinal cohort study.
settingQuestionnaires were provided by research coordinators to mothers at prenatal examinations (at obstetrics clinics) or by mail. Mothers were measured twice: during the first trimester and during the second/third trimester.
participantsData were collected from the 10 129 participating mothers of the 10 288 children surveyed in the 2011 baseline JECS. We excluded responses from mothers who had a miscarriage or stillbirth; therefore, we analysed data from 9649 participants. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Data concerning demographics, medical history, health characteristics, health-related behaviour and environmental exposure were collected via self-administered questionnaires. The response status of participants' partners and contact with their obstetrician were also examined. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors related to non-response.
resultsResponse was associated with living with one's mother-in-law (ORs: 0.47, 95% CIs: 0.24 to 0.85), positive participation of participants' partner (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.35) and multiple visits to the obstetrician (OR: 0.02, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.03). Participants who had a medical history of allergic rhinitis, had body pain or drank alcohol had higher odds of responding (ORs: 0.68, 0.96 and 0.36, 95% CIs: 0.48 to 0.95 and 0.95 to 0.98 and 0.16 to 0.72, respectively); those exposed to secondary smoke had lower odds of responding (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.23).
conclusionsThe non-response rate decreased when participants reported health-related behaviour or characteristics. Obtaining the understanding of people around each participant might help increase response rates.
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.