Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39266952›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Recruiting people with selected citizenships for the health interview survey GEDA Fokus throughout Germany: evaluation of recruitment efforts and recommendations for future research.

Carmen Koschollek, Beate Gaertner, Julia Geerlings, Ronny Kuhnert, Elvira Mauz, Claudia Hövener

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Carmen KoschollekDepartment for Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Straße 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany. KoschollekC@rki.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2186-1072
Beate GaertnerDepartment for Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Straße 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5785-3341
Julia GeerlingsDepartment for Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Straße 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4637-9741
Ronny KuhnertDepartment for Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Straße 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6617-8475
Elvira MauzDepartment for Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Straße 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1988-9789
Claudia HövenerDepartment for Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Straße 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5994-7715

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGermany is the second most common country of immigration after the US. However, people with own or familial history of migration are not represented proportionately to the population within public health monitoring and reporting. To bridge this data gap and enable differentiated analyses on migration and health, we conducted the health interview survey GEDA Fokus among adults with Croatian, Italian, Polish, Syrian, or Turkish citizenship living throughout Germany. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effects of recruitment efforts regarding participation and sample composition.

methodsData collection for this cross-sectional and multilingual survey took place between 11/2021 and 5/2022 utilizing a sequential mixed-mode design, including self-administered web- and paper-based questionnaires as well as face-to-face and telephone interviews. The gross sample (n = 33436; age range 18-79 years) was randomly drawn from the residents' registers in 120 primary sampling units based on citizenship. Outcome rates according to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the sample composition throughout the multistage recruitment process, utilization of survey modes, and questionnaire languages are presented.

resultsOverall, 6038 persons participated, which corresponded to a response rate of 18.4% (range: 13.8% for Turkish citizenship to 23.9% for Syrian citizenship). Home visits accounted for the largest single increase in response. During recruitment, more female, older, as well as participants with lower levels of education and income took part in the survey. People with physical health problems and less favourable health behaviour more often took part in the survey at a later stage, while participants with symptoms of depression or anxiety more often participated early. Utilization of survey modes and questionnaire languages differed by sociodemographic and migration-related characteristics, e.g. participants aged 50 years and above more often used paper- than web-based questionnaires and those with a shorter duration of residence more often used a translated questionnaire.

conclusionMultiple contact attempts, including home visits and different survey languages, as well as offering different modes of survey administration, increased response rates and most likely reduced non-response bias. In order to adequately represent and include the diversifying population in public health monitoring, national public health institutes should tailor survey designs to meet the needs of different population groups considered hard to survey to enable their survey participation.

Indexed as

Health SurveysAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEmigrants and ImmigrantsEmigration and ImmigrationFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultHard to surveyMigrationMixed-modeMultilingualPopulation-basedRandom sampleSequential designSurvey research methods

Identifiers

PMID39266952
PMCPMC11391769

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.