European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 349–355 | Cite as

Selection by socioeconomic factors into the Danish National Birth Cohort

  • Tine Neermann Jacobsen
  • Ellen Aagaard Nohr
  • Morten Frydenberg
PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

Abstract

Background Low participation at recruitment to the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC) has raised concern about non-participation bias. Objective To study the socioeconomic pattern of participation to the DNBC. Methods Independently of the DNBC, we identified the DNBC source population in two geographical areas of Denmark by means of local birth registers with full coverage. Socioeconomic information came from national registers, and the source population consisted of 48,560 births including 15,290 participating women. For every socioeconomic characteristic, we estimated the prevalence ratio [prevalence (participants)/prevalence (source population)] which corresponds to the relative representation of the group (presented in percentages with 95% confidence intervals). Results The overall participation rate was 31%. Women outside the work force or with no further education than compulsory school were underrepresented in the DNBC by 62% (59%; 64%) and 43% (41%; 45%), respectively. Also, women were underrepresented by 18% (13%; 23%) if they were unemployed, by 22% (20%; 24%) if they were in the lowest income group, 38% (35%; 40%) if they received a high proportion of social benefits, and 28% (24%; 31%) if they were singles. Particularly women with low resources according to two socioeconomic factors were strongly underrepresented, typically by 50–67%. Conclusion Groups with low socioeconomic resources in terms of education, occupation, income and civil status are underrepresented in the DNBC compared to the background population. These discrepancies must be taken into account when results from the DNBC and other cohorts of pregnant women are interpreted—especially when descriptive results are presented.

Keywords

Cohorts Non participation Non-response bias Pregnant women Selection bias Socioeconomic status 

Abbreviations

CPR-number

Danish unique personal identifier which is based on “Det Centrale Personregister” (“The Danish Civil Registration System”)

DNBC

Danish National Birth Cohort

GP

General Practitioner

PR

Prevalence ratio

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Jørn Olsen for valuable and constructive suggestions when writing this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Hartge P. Raising response rates: getting to yes. Epidemiology. 1999;105–7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nohr EA, Frydenberg M, Henriksen TB, Olsen J. Does low participation in cohort studies induce bias? Epidemiology. 2006;17(4):413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Austin MA, Criqui MH, Barrett-Connor E, Holdbrook MJ. The effect of response bias on the odds ratio. Am J Epidemiol. 1981;114(1):137–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stang A. Nonresponse research—an underdeveloped field in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18(10):929–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lundberg I, Damström Thakker K, Hällström T, Forsell Y. Determinants of non-participation, and the effects of non-participation on potential cause-effect relationships, in the PART study on mental disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2005;40(6):475–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olsen J, Melbye M, Olsen SF, Sorensen TI, Aaby P, Andersen AM, et al. The Danish National Birth Cohort—its background, structure and aim. Scand J Public Health. 2001;29(4):300–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shahar E, Folsom AR, Jackson R. The effect of nonresponse on prevalence estimates for a referent population: insights from a population-based cohort study. Ann Epidemiol. 1996;6(6):498–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boeing H, Korfmann A, Bergmann MM. Recruitment procedures of EPIC-Germany. Ann Nutr Metab. 1999;43:205–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown WJ, Bryson L, Byles JE, Dobson AJ. Women’s Health Australia: recruitment for a national longitudinal cohort study. Women Health. 1998;28(1):23–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldberg M, Chastang JF, Leclerc A, Zins M, Bonenfant S, Bugel I, et al. Socioeconomic, demographic, occupational, and health factors associated with participation in a long-term epidemiologic survey: a prospective study of the French GAZEL cohort and its target population. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korkeila K, Suominen S, Ahvenainen J, Ojanlatva A, Rautava P, Helenius H, et al. Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;17(11):991–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olsen A, Tjonneland A, Engholm G, Overvad K. Socio-economic determinants for participation in the Danish EPIC Diet, Cancer and Health cohort. IARC scientific publications. 2002;15655.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sogaard AJ, Selmer R, Bjertness E, Thelle D. The Oslo Health Study: the impact of self-selection in a large, population-based survey. Int J Equity Health. 2004;3(1):3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stang A, Moebus S, Dragano N, Beck EM, Möhlenkamp S, Schmermund A, et al. Baseline recruitment and analyses of nonresponse of the Heinz Nixdorf recall study: identifiability of phone numbers as the major determinant of response. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20(6):489–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boshuizen HC, Viet AL, Picavet HSJ, Botterweck A, van Loon AJM. Non-response in a survey of cardiovascular risk factors in the Dutch population: determinants and resulting biases. Public Health. 2006;120(4):297–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fejer R, Hartvigsen J, Kyvik K, Jordan A, Christensen H, Høilund-Carlsen P. The Funen neck and chest pain study: analysing non-response bias by using national vital statistic data. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(3):171–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martikainen P, Laaksonen M, Piha K, Lallukka T. Does survey non-response bias the association between occupational social class and health? Scand J Public Health. 2007;35(2):212–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tjonneland A, Olsen A, Boll K, Stripp C. Study design, exposure variables, and socioeconomic determinants of participation in diet, cancer and health: a population-based prospective cohort study of 57, 053 men and women in Denmark. Scand J Public Health. 2007;35(4):432–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Heuvelen MJ, Hochstenbach JB, Brouwer WH, de Greef MH, Zijlstra GA, van Jaarsveld E, et al. Differences between participants and non-participants in an RCT on physical activity and psychological interventions for older persons. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005;17(3):236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boesen E, Boesen S, Christensen S, Johansen C. Comparison of participants and non-participants in a randomized psychosocial intervention study among patients with malignant melanoma. Psychosomatics. 2007;48(6):510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang N, Shih S, Chang H, Chou Y. Record linkage research and informed consent: who consents? BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Det Centrale Personregister [Internet]. Det Centrale Personregister. 2009 September 6; [cited 2009 Sep 6] Available from: http://www.cpr.dk/cpr/.
  23. 23.
    Danmarks Statistik/Statistics Denmark. Danmarks Statistik [Internet]. Danmarks Statistik. 2009 September 6; [cited 2009 Sep 6] Available from: http://www.dst.dk/.
  24. 24.
    Thygesen L. The register-based system of demographic and social statistics in Denmark. Stat J UN Econ Comm Eur. 1995;12(1):49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hernán MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tine Neermann Jacobsen
    • 1
  • Ellen Aagaard Nohr
    • 2
  • Morten Frydenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Public HealthAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Public HealthAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations