ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2026
Repeated sampling of different individuals within the same clusters to improve precision of longitudinal estimators: the DISC design.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLongitudinal studies often involve repeated cluster sampling of a population at multiple time points, such as in difference-in-differences (DID) studies. Although cohort designs typically lead to more efficient estimators relative to repeated cross-sectional (RCS) designs, they are often impractical.
methodsWe describe the DISC (Different Individuals, Same Clusters) design, a sampling scheme that improves the precision of estimators in these settings. The DISC design represents a hybrid between a cohort and an RCS design, in which the researcher takes a single sample of clusters at baseline, but takes different cross-sectional samples of individuals within clusters at each time point.
resultsWe show analytically that the DISC design yields DID estimators with much higher precision relative to an RCS design, particularly if cluster effects are present. For example, for a design with two surveys, 40 clusters, and 25 individuals per cluster, the variance of a commonly used DID treatment effect estimator is 2.3 times higher in the RCS design for an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.05 and 3.8 times higher for an ICC of 0.1. We also present results of a simulation study comparing the RCS and DISC designs, using both a simple DID estimator and a more complex doubly-robust DID estimator that leverages covariate information, and show gains in precision for both estimators when using the DISC design. Additionally, we illustrate DISC sampling using a household survey dataset from South Africa.
conclusionsUse of the DISC design can result in estimators that have substantially lower variance than the analogous estimator resulting from an RCS design.
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.