4.6 Article

Evaluating the impact of non-response bias in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

期刊

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2009.103861

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Response rates of national health surveys are decreasing, which potentially can bias obtained prevalence estimates. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent to which non-response impacts the representativeness of the 2000 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) sample compared to the 2000 Decennial Census. Methods The 2000 BRFSS had a median response rate of 48%, while the 2000 Decennial Census had a response rate of 67%. Representativeness of the BRFSS sample was evaluated on gender, race, ethnicity, age, household income and marital status. Prevalence of each factor in the BRFSS was compared to the prevalence found in the US Census on both the state and county levels. Prevalence differences between the BRFSS and Census were calculated and their association with response rates was evaluated using robust OLS regression and polytomous logistic regression. The relationship between prevalence differences and other survey design elements, such as data collection procedure and sampling fraction, was also explored. Results The BRFSS prevalence estimates diverged from the Census estimates on several sociodemographic factors even after adjustment for non-response/non-coverage. This was found on both the state and county levels; however, smaller absolute differences between the BRFSS and Census prevalence estimates were found for factors included in the non-response/ non-coverage adjustment weight. Lower response rates (< 40%) were associated with the under-representation of racial/ethnic minorities, women and younger individuals in the BRFSS survey. Conclusion Future research should examine alternative approaches to increase response rate (eg, mixed mode) and to adjust for non-response (eg, multiple imputation).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据