ArticleBMJ open2025
Feasibility of respondent-driven sampling to recruit participants with recent abortion experiences in humanitarian contexts: a mixed-methods community-engaged research study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incidence and safety of abortion in two humanitarian settings in Uganda and Kenya: a respondent-driven sampling study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess the feasibility of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) to recruit participants with recent abortion experiences in humanitarian contexts, and describe the composition of the study sample generated with this sampling method.
designThis was a three-phase mixed-methods community-engaged research study employing an exploratory and explanatory sequential approach. We conducted in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, an interviewer-administered questionnaire on abortion experiences and a health facility assessment.
settingBidibidi Refugee Settlement, Uganda and Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenya from November 2021 to December 2022.
participantsUsing RDS, we recruited 600 participants in Kakuma and 601 participants in Bidibidi with recent abortion experiences. In Kakuma, participants were primarily from Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan; participants in Bidibidi were primarily from South Sudan. Most participants in both sites had completed at least some primary school and were not employed. OUTCOME MEASURES: RDS recruitment dynamics: convergence and bottlenecks on key sociodemographic variables, recruitment and population homophily, reciprocity of social ties, success and experiences recruiting.
resultsThere were minor violations of RDS assumptions, particularly regarding assumptions of reciprocity of ties and seed composition independent of sample. In addition, there was a strong tendency of participants to recruit those from the same home country and living within the same camp zone. However, sample proportions for age, home country, marital status, zone of residence and student status reached equilibrium (stabilised) by around 500 participants at each site, and we were able to quickly attain the study sample size.
conclusionsWhile the true representativeness of our sample remains unknown, RDS is a practical and effective recruitment method in humanitarian contexts for sensitive topics, particularly for research questions in which no data or sampling frames exist. However, attention to representativeness and community engagement is essential to optimising its application and ensuring success.
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.