Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 890–899 | Cite as

Respondent-Driven Sampling and the Recruitment of People with Small Injecting Networks

  • Dana Paquette
  • Joanne Bryant
  • John de Wit
Original Paper

Abstract

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a form of chain-referral sampling, similar to snowball sampling, which was developed to reach hidden populations such as people who inject drugs (PWID). RDS is said to reach members of a hidden population that may not be accessible through other sampling methods. However, less attention has been paid as to whether there are segments of the population that are more likely to be missed by RDS. This study examined the ability of RDS to capture people with small injecting networks. A study of PWID, using RDS, was conducted in 2009 in Sydney, Australia. The size of participants’ injecting networks was examined by recruitment chain and wave. Participants’ injecting network characteristics were compared to those of participants from a separate pharmacy-based study. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the characteristics independently associated with having small injecting networks, using the combined RDS and pharmacy-based samples. In comparison with the pharmacy-recruited participants, RDS participants were almost 80% less likely to have small injecting networks, after adjusting for other variables. RDS participants were also more likely to have their injecting networks form a larger proportion of those in their social networks, and to have acquaintances as part of their injecting networks. Compared to those with larger injecting networks, individuals with small injecting networks were equally likely to engage in receptive sharing of injecting equipment, but less likely to have had contact with prevention services. These findings suggest that those with small injecting networks are an important group to recruit, and that RDS is less likely to capture these individuals.

Keywords

Respondent-driven sampling Injecting drug users Behavioural surveillance Hidden populations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sione Crawford, Annie Granston, Brett Millar and Lucy Pepolim at the NSW Users and AIDS Association for providing expertise, logistical support and interview space to conduct this study. The authors would also like to thank the Kirketon Road Centre and the Central Access Service, St George Hospital, for their comments on the study’s protocol and for locating seeds. This work was supported by the South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service and the University of New South Wales.

References

  1. 1.
    Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn DD. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS. 2005;19(Suppl. 2):67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malekinejad M, Johnston LG, Kendall C, Kerr LRFS, Rifkin MR, Rutherford GW. Using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance in international settings: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(Suppl. 1):105–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Family Health International. Behavioral surveillance surveys. Guidelines for repeated behavioral surveys in populations at risk of HIV. Arlington: Family Health International; 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 2002;49(1):11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heckathorn DD, Semaan S, Broadhead RS, Hughes JJ. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18–25. AIDS Behav. 2002;6(1):55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramirez-Valles J, Heckathorn DD, Vazquez R, Diaz RM, Campbell RT. From networks to populations: the development and application of respondent-driven sampling among IDUs and Latino gay men. AIDS Behav. 2005;9(4):387–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnston LG, Sabin K, Hien MT, Huong PT. Assessment of respondent driven sampling for recruiting female sex workers in two Vietnamese cities: reaching the unseen sex worker. J Urban Health. 2006;83(7 Suppl.):i16–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Platt L, Wall M, Rhodes T, Judd A, Hickman M, Johnston LG, et al. Methods to recruit hard-to-reach groups: comparing two chain referral sampling methods of recruiting injecting drug users across nine studies in Russia and Estonia. J Urban Health. 2006;83(7 Suppl.):i39–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rudolph AE, Crawford ND, Latkin C, Heimer R, Benjamin EO, Jones KC, et al. Subpopulations of illicit drug users reached by targeted street outreach and respondent-driven sampling strategies: implications for research and public health practice. Ann Epidemiol. 2011;21(4):280–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buehler JW. Surveillance. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, editors. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998. p. 435–57.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGarrigle CA, Fenton KA, Gill ON, Hughes G, Morgan D, Evans BG. Behavioural surveillance: the value of national coordination. Sex Transm Infect. 2002;78:398–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Des Jarlais DC, Dehne K, Casabona J. HIV surveillance among injecting drug users. AIDS. 2001;15(Suppl. 3):S13–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erickson BH. Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociol Methodol. 1979;10:276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD. Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol. 2004;34:193–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metsch LR, McCoy CB, McCoy HV, Shultz J, Inciardi J, Wolfe H, et al. Social influences: living arrangements of drug using women at risk for HIV infection. Women Health. 1998;27(1–2):123–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kendall C, Kerr LRFS, Gondim RC, Werneck GL, Macena RHM, Pontes MK, et al. An empirical comparison of respondent-driven sampling, time location sampling, and snowball sampling for behavioral surveillance in men who have sex with men, Fortaleza, Brazil. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(Suppl. 1):S97–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robinson WT, Risser JMH, McGoy S, Becker AB, Rehman H, Jefferson M, et al. Recruiting injection drug users: a three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures. J Urban Health. 2006;83(7 Suppl.):i29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kral AH, Malekinejad M, Vaudrey J, Martinez AN, Lorvick J, McFarland W, et al. Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2010;87(5):839–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burt RD, Hagan H, Sabin K, Thiede H. Evaluating respondent-driven sampling in a major metropolitan area: comparing injection drug users in the 2005 Seattle Area National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System Survey with participants in the RAVEN and Kiwi studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(2):159–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bryant J, Topp L, Hopwood M, Iversen J, Treloar C, Maher L. Is point of access to needles and syringes related to needle sharing? Comparing data collected from pharmacies and needle and syringe programs in south-east Sydney. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(4):364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paquette DM, Bryant J, Crawford S, de Wit J. Implementing RDS with the use of existing resources. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;116(1–3):125–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paquette DM, Bryant J, de Wit J. A Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS) Survey of people who inject drugs in South East Sydney: an assessment of RDS assumptions and requirements. Contemp Drug Probl. 2010;37:575–98.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bryant J, Wilson H, Hull P, Treloar C. Pharmacy needle and syringe survey, New South Wales 2006–2008. Sydney: National Centre in HIV Social Research, The University of New South Wales; 2010.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferligoj A, Hlebec V. Evaluation of social network measurement instruments. Soc Netw. 1999;21:111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vehovar V, Manfreda KL, Koren G, Hlebec V. Measuring ego-centered social networks on the web: questionnaire design issues. Soc Netw. 2008;30:213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stormer A, Tun W, Guli L, Harxhi A, Bodanovskaia Z, Yakovleva A, et al. An analysis of respondent driven sampling with injection drug users (IDU) in Albania and the Russian Federation. J Urban Health. 2006;83(7 Suppl.):i73–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uusküla A, Johnston LG, Raag M, Trummal A, Talu A, Des Jarlais DC. Evaluating recruitment among female sex workers and injecting drug users at risk for HIV using respondent-driven sampling in Estonia. J Urban Health. 2010;87(2):304–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frost SDW, Brouwer KC, Firestone Cruz MA, Ramos R, Ramos ME, Lozada RM, et al. Respondent-driven sampling of injection drug users in two U.S.–Mexico border cities: recruitment dynamics and impact on estimates of HIV and syphilis prevalence. J Urban Health. 2006;83(Suppl. 1):83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De P, Jolly A, Cox J, Boivin JF. Characterizing the drug-injecting networks of cocaine and heroin injectors in Montreal. Can J Public Health. 2006;97(3):207–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aitken CK, Higgs P, Bowden S. Differences in the social networks of ethnic Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese injecting drug users and their implications for blood-borne virus transmission. Epidemiol Infect. 2008;136(3):410–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kottiri BJ, Friedman SR, Neaigus A, Curtis R, Des Jarlais DC. Risk networks and racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of HIV infection among injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30(1):95–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gyarmathy VA, Li N, Tobin KE, Hoffman IF, Sokolov N, Levchenko J, et al. Injecting equipment sharing in Russian drug injecting dyads. AIDS Behav. 2009;14(1):141–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnston LG. Behavioural surveillance: introduction to respondent driven sampling (participant manual). Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Feld SL. Why your friends have more friends than you do. Am J Sociol. 1991;96(6):1464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iguchi MY, Ober AJ, Berry SH, Fain T, Heckathorn DD, Gorbach PM, et al. Simultaneous recruitment of drug users and men who have sex with men in the United States and Russia using respondent-driven sampling: sampling methods and implications. J Urban Health. 2009;86(Suppl. 1):5–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suh T, Mandell W, Latkin C, Kim J. Social network characteristics and injecting HIV-risk behaviors among street injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;47(2):137–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Valente TW, Vlahov D. Selective risk taking among needle exchange participants: implications for supplemental interventions. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(3):406–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Latkin C, Mandell W, Oziemkowska M, Celentano D, Vlahov D, Ensminger M, et al. Using social network analysis to study patterns of drug use among urban drug users at high risk for HIV/AIDS. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1995;38(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol Theory. 1983;1:201–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnston LG, Malekinejad M, Kendall C, Iuppa IM, Rutherford GW. Implementation challenges to using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance: field experiences in international settings. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(Suppl. 1):131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Scott G. “They got their program, and I got mine”: a cautionary tale concerning the ethical implications of using respondent-driven sampling to study injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2008;19(1):42–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Neaigus A, Friedman SR, Kottiri BJ, Des Jarlais DC. HIV risk networks and HIV transmission among injecting drug use1rs. Eval Program Plan. 2001;24(2):221–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    De P, Cox J, Boivin JF, Platt RW, Jolly A. The importance of social networks in their association to drug equipment sharing among injecting drug users: a review. Addiction. 2007;102:1730–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Latkin C, Mandell W, Vlahov D, Oziemkowska M, Celentano D. People and places: behavioral settings and personal network characteristics as correlates of needle sharing. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996;13(3):273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Miller M, Neaigus A. Networks, resources and risk among women who use drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(6):967–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lakon CM, Ennett ST, Norton EC. Mechanisms through which drug, sex partner, and friendship network characteristics relate to risky needle use among high risk youth and young adults. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(9):2489–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Reintjes R, Wiessing L. 2nd-Generation HIV surveillance and injecting drug use: uncovering the epidemiological ice-berg. Int J Public Health. 2007;52(3):166–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dubois-Arber F, Jeannin A, Spencer B, Gervasoni JP, Graz B, Elford J, et al. Mapping HIV/STI behavioural surveillance in Europe. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Paquette D, De Wit J. Sampling methods used in developed countries for behavioural surveillance among men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(6):1252–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre in HIV Social ResearchUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Social and Organizational PsychologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations