European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 489–496

Baseline recruitment and analyses of nonresponse of the Heinz Nixdorf recall study: Identifiability of phone numbers as the major determinant of response

  • A. Stang
  • S. Moebus
  • N. Dragano
  • E. M. Beck
  • S. Möhlenkamp
  • A. Schmermund
  • J. Siegrist
  • R. Erbel
  • K. H. Jöckel
Methods

Abstract

The Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study is an ongoing population-based prospective cardiovascular cohort study of the Ruhr area in Germany. This paper focuses on the recruitment strategy and its response results including a comparison of participants of the baseline examination with nonparticipants. Random samples of the general population were drawn from residents’ registration offices including men and women aged 45–74 years. We used a multi-mode contact approach including an invitational letter, a maximum of two reminder letters and phone calls for the recruitment of study subjects. Nonparticipants were asked to fill in a short questionnaire. We calculated proportions of response, contact, cooperation and recruitment efficacy to characterize the participation. Overall, 4487 eligible subjects participated in our study. Although the elderly (65–75 years) had the highest contact proportion, the cooperation proportion was the lowest among both men and women. The recruitment efficacy proportion was highest among subjects aged 55–64 years. The identifiability of the phone number of study subjects was an important determinant of response. The recruitment efficacy proportion among subjects without an identified phone number was 11.4% as compared to 65.3% among subjects with an identified phone number. The majority of subjects agreed to participate after one invitational letter only (52.6%). A second reminding letter contributed only very few participants to the study. Nonparticipants were more often current smokers than participants and less often belonged to the highest social class. Living in a regular relationship with a partner was more often reported among participants than nonparticipants.

Keywords

Cohort studies Epidemiologic methods Germany Selection bias 

Abbreviations

EBT

electron beam computed tomography

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Doll, R, Peto, R 1976Mortality in relation to smoking: 20 years’ observations on male British doctorsBr Med J215251536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hennekens, CH, Buring, JE, Peto, R 1992Aspirin in ischemic heart diseaseN Engl J Med32714551456Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grodstein, F, Martinez, ME, Platz, EA, Giovannucci, E, Colditz, GA, Kautzky, M, Fuchs, C, Stampfer, MJ 1998Postmenopausal hormone use and risk for colorectal cancer and adenomaAnn Intern Med128705712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stang, A, Ahrens, W, Jöckel, KH 1999Control response proportions in population-based case-control studies in GermanyEpidemiology10181183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmermund, A, Möhlenkamp, S, Stang, A, Grönemeyer, D, Seibel, R, Hirche, H, Mann, K, Siffert, W, Lauterbach, K, Siegrist, J, Jöckel, KH, Erbel, R 2002for the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study Investigative Group. Assessment of clinically silent atherosclerotic disease and established and novel risk factors for predicting myocardial infarction and cardiac death in healthy middle-aged subjects: rationale and design of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall StudyAm Heart J144212218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slattery, ML, Edwards, SL, Caan, BJ, Kerber, RA, Potter, JD 1995Response rates among control subjects in case-control studiesAnn Epidemiol5245249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latza, U, Stang, A, Bergmann, M, Kroke, A, Sauer, S, Holle, R, Kamtsiuris, P, Terschüren, C, Hoffmann, W 2004The problem of response in epidemiological studies in Germany (part I) [Zum Problem der Response in epidemiologischen Studien in Deutschland (Teil I)]Gesundheitswesen66326336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thefeld, W, Stolzenberg, H, Bellach, BM 1999The Federal Health Survey: response, composition of participants and non-responder analysisGesundheitswesen61S57S61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabe, E, Pannier-Fischer, E, Bromen, K, Schuldt, K, Stang, A, Poncar, C, Wittenhorst, M, Bock, E, Weber, S, Jöckel, KH 2003Bonn Vein study of the German Society of Phlebology [Bonner Venenstudie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Phlebologie]Phlebologie32114Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boeing, H, Korfmann, A, Bergmann, MM 1999Recruitment procedures of EPIC-GermanyAnn Nutr Metab43205215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffmann, W, Terschüren, C, Holle, R, Kamtsiuris, P, Bergmann, M, Kroke, A, Sauer, S, Stang, A, Latza, U 2004The problem of response in epidemiologic studies in Germany (part II) [Zum Problem der Response in epidemiologischen Studien in Deutschland (Teil II)]Gesundheitswesen66482491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cottler, LB, Zipp, JF, Robins, LN, Spitznagel, EL 1987Difficult-to-recruit respondents and their effect on prevalence estimates in an epidemiologic surveyAm J Epidemiol125329339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bisgard, KM, Folsom, AR, Hong, CP, Seller, TA 1994Mortality and cancer rates in nonrespondents to a prospective study of older women: 5-year follow-upAm J Epidemiol1399901000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vestbo, J, Rasmussen, FV 1992Baseline characteristics are not sufficient indicators of non-response bias in follow-up studiesJ Epidemiol Community Health46617619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brogger, J, Bakke, P, Eide, GE, Gulsvik, A 2003Contribution of follow-up of nonresponders to prevalence and risk estimates: a Norwegian respiratory health surveyAm J Epidemiol157558566PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holt, VL, Daling, JR, Stergachis, A, Voigt, LF, Weiss, NS 1991Results and effect of refusal recontact in a case-control study of ectopic pregnancyEpidemiology2375379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Launer, LJ, Wind, AW, Deeg, DJ 1994Nonresponse pattern and bias in a community-based cross-sectional study of cognitive functioning among the elderlyAm J Epidemiol139803812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akker, M, Buntinx, F, Metsemakers, JFM, Knotterus, JA 1998Morbidity in responders and non-responders in a register-based population surveyFamily Prac15261263Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richiardi, L, Boffetta, P, Merletti, F 2002Analysis of nonresponse bias in a population-based case-control study on lung cancerJ Clin Epidemiol5510331040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barchielli, A, Balzi, D 2002Nine-year follow-up of a survey on smoking habits in florence (Italy): higher mortality among non-respondersInt J Epidemiol3110381042PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Austin, MA, Criqui, MH, Barrett-Connor, E, Holdbrook, MJ 1981The effect of response bias on the odds ratioAm J Epidemiol114137143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boström, G, Hallqvist, J, Haglund, BJ, Romelsjö, A, Svanström, L, Diderichsen, F 1993Socioeconomic differences in smoking in an urban Swedish population. The bias introduced by non-participation in a mailed questionnaireScand J Soc Med217782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Korkeila, K, Suominen, S, Ahvenainen, J, Ojanlatva, A, Rautava, P, Helenius, H, Koskenvuo, M 2001Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health surveyEur J Epidemiol17991999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stang, A 2003Nonresponse research – an underdeveloped field in epidemiology (editorial)Eur J Epidemiol18929931PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stang, A, Jöckel, KH 2004Studies with low response proportions may be less biased than studies high response proportionsAm J Epidemiol159204210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hartge, P 1999Raising response rates: getting to yesEpidemiol10105106Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Stang
    • 1
  • S. Moebus
    • 2
  • N. Dragano
    • 3
  • E. M. Beck
    • 2
  • S. Möhlenkamp
    • 4
  • A. Schmermund
    • 4
  • J. Siegrist
    • 3
  • R. Erbel
    • 4
  • K. H. Jöckel
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometry and Informatics, Medical FacultyMartin-Luther-University of Halle-WittenbergGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University HospitalUniversity of Duisburg-EssenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical SociologyUniversity of DuesseldorfGermany
  4. 4.West German Heart Center, University HospitalUniversity of Duisburg-EssenGermany

Personalised recommendations