Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32275677›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Lessons learned from using respondent-driven sampling (RDS) to assess sexual risk behaviors among Kenyan young adults living in urban slum settlements: A process evaluation.

Larissa Jennings Mayo-Wilson, Muthoni Mathai, Grace Yi, Margaret O Mak'anyengo, Melissa Davoust, Massah L Massaquoi, Stefan Baral, Fred M Ssewamala, Nancy E Glass, NAHEDO Study Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Larissa Jennings Mayo-WilsonDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9349-2283
Muthoni MathaiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Nairobi, College of Health Sciences, Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.
Grace YiDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Margaret O Mak'anyengoDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Nairobi, College of Health Sciences, Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.
Melissa DavoustDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Massah L MassaquoiDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Stefan BaralDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Fred M SsewamalaWashington University in St. Louis, The Brown School, Goldfarb, One Brookings, Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Nancy E GlassJohns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6691-3684
NAHEDO Study Group
Johns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Nairobi · KEKenyatta National Hospital · KEWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
Training Program for Scientists Conducting Research to Reduce HIV Health DisparitR25MH067127 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Emily A Arnold, Torsten Brian Neilands · 2003 to 2026
$5.4M
Minority Populations Prevention Researcher TrainingR25HD045810 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI NEILANDS, TORSTEN BRIAN · 2003 to 2018
$4.3M
Integrating Microenterprise and Behavioral Economics for HIV Prevention in African-American Young AdultsK01MH107310 · NIMH · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI JENNINGS MAYO-WILSON, LARISSA · 2015 to 2019
$848k
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NICHD NIH HHS R25 HD045810NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH107310NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH067127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a peer-referral sampling methodology used to estimate characteristics of underserved groups that cannot be randomly sampled. RDS has been implemented in several settings to identify hidden populations at risk for HIV, but few studies have reported the methodological lessons learned on RDS design and implementation for assessing sexual risk behaviors in marginalized youth.

methodsWe used RDS to recruit N = 350 young adults, aged 18 to 22, who were living in urban slum settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. A structured survey was used to assess sexual risk behaviors. Twenty seeds were selected and asked to recruit up to three eligible peers. We used small monetary incentives and a three-day recruitment coupon with sequential numbers linking recruiters to their recruits.

resultsData collection was completed in 8 days with a maximum chain length of 6 waves. Each seed yielded 16 to 21 eligible recruits. Three (15%) seeds were unproductive and were replaced. RDS benefits were high identification rates (90% coupons returned per coupons given), high eligibility rates (100% eligible recruits per coupons returned), and high efficiency (~39 eligible recruits per day). 44% of the sample was female. Most recruits (74%) reported being "friends" for 7+ years with their recruiter. RDS overcame feasibility concerns of household-, clinic-, and school-based sampling methodologies in that underserved youth who were unemployed (68%), out of school (48%), ethnic minorities (26%), and having prior residential instability (≥2 moves in the past year) (20%) were successfully recruited, based on weighted analyses. Youth reporting HIV risk behaviors, including unprotected sex (38%), sex while high/drunk (35%), and sex exchange for pay (14%), were also enrolled. However, 28% were not sexually active within the last 6 months. Challenges included managing wait times during peaks and participant referral expectations. Community engagement, use of study-stamped coupons, broad inclusion criteria, incentives, and study sites within walking distances all contributed to the successful implementation of the sampling methodology.

conclusionRDS is an important tool in reaching a diverse sample of underserved and at-risk young adults for study participation. Implications for optimizing RDS for behavioral studies in this population are discussed.

Indexed as

Risk-TakingSexual BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentCitiesFemaleHumansKenyaMaleSex CharacteristicsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32275677
PMCPMC7147752
OpenAlexW3016229703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.