Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41398225›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Weighting strategy and selection analysis in the panel 'Health in Germany': methods and results for the 2024 annual survey.

Stefan Damerow, Ronny Kuhnert, Angelika Schaffrath Rosario, Johannes Lemcke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Stefan DamerowDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, 13347, Berlin, Germany. damerows@rki.de.
Ronny KuhnertDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, 13347, Berlin, Germany.
Angelika Schaffrath RosarioDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, 13347, Berlin, Germany.
Johannes LemckeDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, 13347, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe panel `Health in Germany` has been established to gather nationwide health-related information, replacing cross-sectional surveys as primary data sources. However, panel designs involve multiple selection stages, potentially introducing additional nonresponse bias. This study aims to describe this drop-out bias and the weighting strategy used to improve representativeness.

methodsPanelists were recruited through a recruitment study. At completion of the recruitment questionnaire, participants were invited to register for the panel. Registered panelists were subsequently invited to the first annual survey in 2024, which was divided into three sub-waves. Each included one of four questionnaires with different topics. Logistic regression models are used to estimate the probability for panel registration and participation in panel 2024 questionnaires, using sociodemographic and health-related variables from the recruitment study to illustrate drop-out bias. The weighting scheme and techniques are described. To assess the potential for drop-out bias and how it is reduced through weighting, unweighted and weighted estimates are compared to internal and external reference distributions using standardized differences.

resultsDrop-out analysis showed that sociodemographic characteristics (age, education, German citizenship) had a stronger association with panel registration than health-related parameters (e.g., self-rated health, smoking status, sport activity, chronic diseases) among the participants of the recruitment study. Similar patterns as for registration were found for participation in the 2024 questionnaires, except for age, which showed a reverse effect. No differences were observed across questionnaire types. Standardized differences confirmed the findings: sociodemographic characteristics-particularly education and German citizenship-showed larger deviations than health-related parameters. The largest deviations occurred in the recruitment study. The weighting procedure reduced most standardized differences to below 0.5% points. An exception is German citizenship, which showed only slight improvement.

conclusionsDrop-out within the first year of a newly established panel is mainly affected by sociodemographic variables, with minor effects due to health-related parameters. The additional recruitment steps did not lead to concerning deviations in sample composition compared to the recruitment study. Remaining differences were addressed through drop-out and calibration weighting, so the weighted panel 2024 sample does not substantially differ from what would be expected in a cross-sectional design such as the recruitment study. However, continued analyses are needed, as sample composition may change due to future panel attrition.

Indexed as

Health SurveysAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHealth StatusHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCalibration weightingDesign weightingDrop-out biasInverse probability weightingNonresponse biasPanel recruitmentPanel studyPopulation-basedRakingRepresentativeSelection effects

Identifiers

PMID41398225
PMCPMC12822093

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.