Reporting participation in epidemiologic studies: a survey of practice.

Self-selection bias may threaten the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. Studies with a low level of participation are particularly vulnerable to this bias, and commentators note apparent declines in participation in recent years. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review to survey the practice of reporting participation in epidemiologic studies, to assess changes in participation over time, and to evaluate the impact of increased biologic specimen collection on participation. The authors abstracted selected study characteristics from 355 peer-reviewed, original, analytic-epidemiology research articles published from January 1 to April 30, 2003, in 10 high-impact general epidemiology, public health, and medical journals. At least some information regarding participation was provided in 59% of cross-sectional studies, 44% of case-control studies, and 32% of cohort studies. Participation appears to have declined during 1970-2003 for all study designs. Participation declined most steeply for controls in population-based, case-control studies (-1.86% per year, 95% confidence interval: -3.03, -0.69), with steeper declines after 1990. Proportionately more studies collected biologic specimens over time, particularly for cohort and case-control study designs (p(trend) = 0.06 and 0.03, respectively), yet participation was reported separately for the biologic specimen study component in only 27% of studies. The authors conclude that epidemiologists need to address declining participation and to report participation consistently, including for biologic specimen collection.

[1]  J. Potter,et al.  Response rates among control subjects in case-control studies. , 1995, Annals of epidemiology.

[2]  T. Cook,et al.  Irritable bowel syndrome: are incentives useful for improving survey response rates? , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[4]  Shirley A. Star,et al.  AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH , 1980 .

[5]  W. Ahrens,et al.  Control response proportions in population-based case-control studies in Germany. , 1999, Epidemiology.

[6]  S. Olson Reported participation in case-control studies: changes over time. , 2001, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[8]  R. Hayes,et al.  Factors impacting questionnaire response in a Dutch retrospective cohort study. , 2004, Annals of epidemiology.

[9]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[10]  C. Viscoli,et al.  Influence of race, clinical, and other socio-demographic features on trial participation. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  R. Millikan,et al.  Participation rates in a case-control study: the impact of age, race, and race of interviewer. , 1999, Annals of epidemiology.

[12]  V. McCormack,et al.  Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  K. Jordan,et al.  Does questionnaire structure influence response in postal surveys? , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  Chien-Jen Chen,et al.  No association between genetic polymorphisms of CYP1A1, GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1, NAT2, and nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Taiwan. , 2003, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[15]  C. Begg,et al.  Reporting Participation in Case-Control Studies , 2002, Epidemiology.

[16]  A. Dobson,et al.  Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[17]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[18]  D. Sandler On revealing what we'd rather hide: the problem of describing study participation. , 2002, Epidemiology.

[19]  P. Hartge Raising response rates: getting to yes. , 1999, Epidemiology.

[20]  Ann P. Rafferty,et al.  The Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Advance Mailings in a Telephone Survey , 2005 .

[21]  Don C Des Jarlais,et al.  Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. , 2004, American journal of public health.

[22]  A. Walker,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting in randomised controlled trials. , 2004, Journal of wound care.

[23]  Stanley Presser,et al.  Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse over the Past Quarter Century , 2005 .

[24]  M. Clarke,et al.  Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  E. Clipp,et al.  Response Rates to a Mailed Survey Targeting Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Comparison of Conditional versus Unconditional Incentives , 2005, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[26]  D. Moher,et al.  Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. , 2001, JAMA.