ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024
How to mitigate selection bias in COVID-19 surveys: evidence from five national cohorts.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leadership avoidance as a rational choice among women instructors in higher education: cross-cultural parallels.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Resilience to depression and unchanged quality of life in Sardinian old adults during COVID-19 lockdown.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- How to mitigate selection bias in COVID-19 surveys: evidence from five national cohorts.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-response to surveys is a common problem; even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic with social distancing measures challenging data collection. As respondents often differ from non-respondents, this can introduce bias. The goal of the current study was to see if we can reduce bias and restore sample representativeness in a series of COVID-19 surveys embedded within five UK cohort studies by using the rich data available from previous waves of data collection. Three surveys were conducted during the pandemic across five UK cohorts: National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD, born 1946), 1958 National Child Development Study (NCDS), 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70), Next Steps (born 1989-90) and Millennium Cohort Study (MCS, born 2000-02). Response rates in the COVID-19 surveys were lower compared to previous waves, especially in the younger cohorts. We identified bias due to systematic non-response in several variables, with more respondents in the most advantaged social class and among those with higher childhood cognitive ability. Making use of the rich data available pre-pandemic in these longitudinal studies, the application of non-response weights and multiple imputation was successful in reducing bias in parental social class and childhood cognitive ability, nearly eliminating it for the former. Surveys embedded within existing cohort studies offer a clear advantage over cross-sectional samples collected during the pandemic in terms of their ability to mitigate selection bias. This will enhance the quality and reliability of future research studying the medium and long-term effects of the pandemic.
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.