Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33032535›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

An evaluation of whether propensity score adjustment can remove the self-selection bias inherent to web panel surveys addressing sensitive health behaviours.

Andrew Copas, Sarah Burkill, Fred Conrad, Mick P Couper, Bob Erens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Adjusting for Underrepresentation Reveals Widespread Underestimation of Parkinson's Disease Symptom Burden.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Andrew CopasInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. a.copas@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8968-5963
Sarah BurkillInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Fred ConradSurvey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Mick P CouperSurvey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Bob ErensInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council UK G0701757Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 084840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn health research, population estimates are generally obtained from probability-based surveys. In market research surveys are frequently conducted from volunteer web panels. Propensity score adjustment (PSA) is often used at analysis to try to remove bias in the web survey, but empirical evidence of its effectiveness is mixed. We assess the ability of PSA to remove bias in the context of sensitive sexual health research and the potential of web panel surveys to replace or supplement probability surveys.

methodsFour web panel surveys asked a subset of questions from the third British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). Five propensity scores were generated for each web survey. The scores were developed from progressively larger sets of variables, beginning with demographic variables only and ending with demographic, sexual identity, lifestyle, attitudinal and sexual behaviour variables together. The surveys were weighted to match Natsal-3 based on propensity score quintiles. The performance of each survey and weighting was assessed by calculating the average 'absolute' odds ratio (inverse of the odds ratio if less than 1) across 22 pre-specified sexual behaviour outcomes of interest comparing the weighted web survey with Natsal-3. The average standard error across odds ratios was examined to assess the impact of weighting upon variance.

resultsPropensity weighting reduced bias relative to Natsal-3 as more variables were added for males, but had little effect for females, and variance increased for some surveys. Surveys with more biased estimates before propensity weighting showed greater reduction in bias from adjustment. Inconsistencies in performance were evident across surveys and outcomes. For most surveys and outcomes any reduction in bias was only partial and for some outcomes the bias increased.

conclusionsEven after propensity weighting using a rich range of information, including some sexual behaviour variables, some bias remained and variance increased for some web surveys. Whilst our findings support the use of PSA for web panel surveys, the reduction in bias is likely to be partial and unpredictable, consistent with the findings from market research. Our results do not support the use of volunteer web panels to generate unbiased population health estimates.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorSexual BehaviorFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMalePropensity ScoreSelection BiasInternet surveyPropensity score adjustmentSampling biasSelection biasSexual behaviourSurvey methodsWeb survey

Identifiers

PMID33032535
PMCPMC7545552

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.