Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34511067›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Strategies to maximise study retention and limit attrition bias in a prospective cohort study of men reporting a history of injecting drug use released from prison: the prison and transition health study.

Ashleigh Cara Stewart, Reece Cossar, Shelley Walker, Anna Lee Wilkinson, Brendan Quinn, Paul Dietze, Rebecca Winter, Amy Kirwan, Michael Curtis, James R P Ogloff and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Health and incarceration research in Australia: a scoping review.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

15 authors.

Ashleigh Cara StewartBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia. ashleigh.stewart@burnet.edu.au.
Reece CossarBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Shelley WalkerBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Anna Lee WilkinsonBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Brendan QuinnBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Paul DietzeBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Rebecca WinterBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Amy KirwanBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Michael CurtisBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
James R P OgloffCentre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology and Forensicare, Melbourne, Australia.
Stuart KinnerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Campbell AitkenBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Tony ButlerSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Emma WoodsBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
Mark StoovéBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are significant challenges associated with studies of people released from custodial settings, including loss to follow-up in the community. Interpretation of findings with consideration of differences between those followed up and those not followed up is critical in the development of evidence-informed policies and practices. We describe attrition bias in the Prison and Transition Health (PATH) prospective cohort study, and strategies employed to minimise attrition.

methodsPATH involves 400 men with a history of injecting drug use recruited from three prisons in Victoria, Australia. Four interviews were conducted: one pre-release ('baseline') and three interviews at approximately 3, 12, and 24 months post-release ('follow-up'). We assessed differences in baseline characteristics between those retained and not retained in the study, reporting mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). 

resultsMost participants (85%) completed at least one follow-up interview and 162 (42%) completed all three follow-up interviews. Retained participants were younger than those lost to follow-up (mean diff - 3.1 years, 95% CI -5.3, - 0.9). There were no other statistically significant differences observed in baseline characteristics.

conclusionThe high proportion of participants retained in the PATH cohort study via comprehensive follow-up procedures, coupled with extensive record linkage to a range of administrative datasets, is a considerable strength of the study. Our findings highlight how strategic and comprehensive follow-up procedures, frequent contact with participants and secondary contacts, and established working relationships with the relevant government departments can improve study retention and potentially minimise attrition bias.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical PreparationsPrisonersSubstance Abuse, IntravenousCohort StudiesHumansMalePrisonsProspective StudiesVictoriaPharmaceutical PreparationsAttrition biasCohort studyPeople in prisonPeople who inject drugs

Identifiers

PMID34511067
PMCPMC8436457

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.