ArticleSocial networks2019
Evaluating Sampling Biases from Third-party Reporting as a Method for Improving Survey Measures of Sensitive Behaviors.
Article in Social networks, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peer Reporting: Sampling Design and Unbiased Estimates.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Direct and indirect estimation of adolescent sexual intercourse and contraceptive use in Rajasthan India: an application of the best friend methodology.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Describing the safety of abortion at the population level using network-based survey approaches.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- An Assessment of Third-Party Reporting of Close Ties to Measure Sensitive Behaviors: The Confidante Method to Measure Abortion Incidence in Ethiopia and Uganda.Studies in family planning · 2021Article
- Social network-based measurement of abortion incidence: promising findings from population-based surveys in Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Rajasthan, India.Population health metrics · 2020Article
- Inequities in the incidence and safety of abortion in Nigeria.BMJ global health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Survey participants often misreport their sensitive behaviors (e.g., smoking, drinking, having sex) during interviews. Several studies have suggested that asking respondents to report the sensitive behaviors of their friends or confidants, rather than their own, might help address this problem. This is so because the "third-party reporting" (TPR) approach creates a surrogate sample of alters that may be less subject to social desirability biases. However, estimates of the prevalence of sensitive behaviors based on TPR assume that the surrogate sample of friends is representative of the population of interest. We used sociometric data on social networks in Likoma, Malawi to examine this assumption. Specifically, we use friendship network data to investigate whether friends have similar socio-economic characteristics as index respondents, and to measure possible correlations between the likelihood of inclusion in the surrogate sample and sensitive behaviors. From these results, we suggest approaches to strengthen estimates of the prevalence of sensitive behaviors obtained from TPR.
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.