Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35373254›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2022

The impact of non-response weighting in health surveys for estimates on primary health care utilization.

Heidi Amalie Rosendahl Jensen, Cathrine Juel Lau, Michael Davidsen, Helene Birgitte Feveile, Anne Illemann Christensen, Ola Ekholm

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
17.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heidi Amalie Rosendahl JensenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7171-7429
Cathrine Juel LauCenter for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, The Capital Region, Denmark.
Michael DavidsenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Helene Birgitte FeveileMethod and Analysis, Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne Illemann ChristensenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ola EkholmNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKFrederiksberg Hospital · DKStatistics Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow response rates in health surveys may affect the representativeness and generalizability of results if non-response is systematically related to the indicator of interest. To account for such potential bias, weighting procedures are widely used with an overall aim to obtain less biased estimates. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of applying calibrated weights on prevalence estimates of primary health care utilization among respondents compared to the entire sample of a representative Danish survey of adults aged ≥16 years.

methodsRegistry-based 1-year prevalence data on health care utilization of chiropractor/physiotherapist, dentist and psychologist in 2016 were linked to the entire sample (n = 312 349), including respondents (n = 183 372), from the Danish National Health Survey in 2017. Calibrated weights, which applied information on e.g. sex, age, ethnic background, education and overall health service use were used to assess their impact on prevalence estimates among respondents.

resultsAcross all included types of health care, weighting for non-response decreased prevalence estimates among respondents, which resulted in less biased estimates. For example, the overall 1-year prevalence of chiropractor/physiotherapist, dentist and psychologist utilization decreased from 19.1% to 16.9%, 68.4% to 62.5% and 1.9% to 1.8%, respectively. The corresponding prevalence in the entire sample was 16.5%, 59.4% and 1.7%.

conclusionsApplying calibrated weights to survey data to account for non-response reduces bias in primary health care utilization estimates. Future studies are needed to explore the possible impact of weighting on other health estimates.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultBiasHealth SurveysHumansPrevalenceSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35373254
PMCPMC9159316
OpenAlexW4220895092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.