ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Interviewer biases in medical survey data: The example of blood pressure measurements.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health agencies rely upon survey-based physical measures to estimate the prevalence of key global health indicators such as hypertension. Such measures are usually collected by nonhealthcare worker personnel and are potentially subject to measurement error due to variations in interviewer technique and setting, termed "interviewer effects." In the context of physical measurements, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, interviewer-induced biases have not yet been examined. Using blood pressure as a case study, we aimed to determine the relative contribution of interviewer effects on the total variance of blood pressure measurements in three large nationally representative health surveys from the Global South. We utilized 169,681 observations between 2008 and 2019 from three health surveys (Indonesia Family Life Survey, National Income Dynamics Study of South Africa, and Longitudinal Aging Study in India). In a linear mixed model, we modeled systolic blood pressure as a continuous dependent variable and interviewer effects as random effects alongside individual factors as covariates. To quantify the interviewer effect-induced uncertainty in hypertension prevalence, we utilized a bootstrap approach comparing subsamples of observed blood pressure measurements to their adjusted counterparts. Our analysis revealed that the proportion of variation contributed by interviewers to blood pressure measurements was statistically significant but small:
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.