ArticleCanadian public policy. Analyse de politiques2022
Survey Non-Response in COVID-19 Times: The Case of the Labour Force Survey.
Article in Canadian public policy. Analyse de politiques, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chiropractic pediatric patient management and interdisciplinary collaboration: a descriptive cross-sectional study of chiropractors in Quebec.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2022Article
- Resilience Among Undocumented Migrants: An Analysis of the Likelihood to Participate in a Panel Study Among Undocumented Migrants Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, labour-force survey non-response rates have surged in many countries. We show that in the case of the Canadian Labour Force Survey (LFS), the bulk of this increase is due to the suspension of in-person interviews following the adoption of telework within Federal agencies, including Statistics Canada. Individuals with vulnerabilities to the COVID-19 economic shock have been harder to reach and have been gradually less and less represented in the LFS during the pandemic. We present evidence suggesting that the decline in employment and labour-force participation have been underestimated over the March-July 2020 period. We argue that these non-response issues are moderate when analyzing aggregate outcomes, but that researchers should exert caution when gauging the robustness of estimates for subgroups. We discuss practical implications for research based on the LFS, such as the consequences for panels and the choice of public-use versus master files of the LFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.