Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32685654›Full record

ReviewSSM - population health2020

Practice of reporting social characteristics when describing representativeness of epidemiological cohort studies - A rationale for an intersectional perspective.

Philipp Jaehn, Julia Rehling, Ronny Klawunn, Sibille Merz, Christine Holmberg, ADVANCE GENDER study group

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in SSM - population health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Novel stepwise approach to assess representativeness of a large multicenter observational cohort of tuberculosis patients: The example of RePORT Brazil.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021
    Observational
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

6 authors.

Philipp JaehnBrandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Hochstraße 15, 14770, Brandenburgan der Havel, Germany.
Julia RehlingUmweltbundesamt, Corrensplatz 1, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
Ronny KlawunnBrandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Hochstraße 15, 14770, Brandenburgan der Havel, Germany.
Sibille MerzBrandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Hochstraße 15, 14770, Brandenburgan der Havel, Germany.
Christine HolmbergBrandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Hochstraße 15, 14770, Brandenburgan der Havel, Germany.
ADVANCE GENDER study group

Funding

Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MC_PC_19009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Representativeness has been defined as the degree of similarity of a study population compared to an external population. To characterize a study population, both health-related and social or demographic features should be considered according to current guidelines. However, little guidance is given on how to describe social complexity of study populations when aiming to conclude on representativeness. We argue that sociological concepts should inform characterizations of study populations in order to increase credibility of conclusions on representativeness. The concept of intersectionality suggests to conceptualize social location as a combination of characteristics such as sex/gender and ethnicity instead of focusing on each feature independently. To contextualize advantages of integrating the concept of intersectionality when investigating representativeness, we reviewed publications that described the baseline population of selected epidemiological cohort studies. Information on the applied methods to characterize the study population was extracted, as well as reported social characteristics. Nearly all reviewed studies reported descriptive statistics of the baseline population and response proportions. In most publications, study populations were characterized according to place of residence, age and sex/gender while other social characteristics were reported irregularly. Differential patterns of representativeness were revealed in analyses that stratified social characteristics by sex/gender or age. Furthermore, the included studies did not explicitly state the theoretical approach that underlay their description of the study population. Intersectionality might be particularly fruitful when applied to descriptions of representativeness, because this concept provides an understanding of social location that has been developed based on situated experiences of people at the intersection of multiple axes of social power relations. An intersectional perspective, hence, contributes to approximate social complexity of study populations and might contribute to increase validity of conclusions on representativeness of population-based studies.

Indexed as

Cohort studiesIntersectionalityNIH, National Institutes of HealthRepresentativenessSES, Socio-economic statusSocial locationStudy participationUK, United KingdomUSA, United States of America

Identifiers

PMID32685654
PMCPMC7358453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.