Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 93, Issue 2, pp 379–387 | Cite as

Factors Associated with Productive Recruiting in a Respondent-Driven Sample of Men who Have Sex with Men in Vancouver, Canada

  • Jamie I. Forrest
  • Nathan J. Lachowsky
  • Allan Lal
  • Zishan Cui
  • Paul Sereda
  • Henry F. Raymond
  • Gina Ogilvie
  • Eric A. Roth
  • David Moore
  • Robert S. Hogg
Article

Abstract

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) has become a preferred sampling strategy for HIV research and surveillance in many global settings. Methodological investigation into the validity of RDS-generated samples has helped improve theoretical components of design. However, the operational challenges of implementing RDS remain underreported. We sought to identify factors independently associated with productive recruiting in an urban RDS-generated sample of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). Data were collected from the Momentum Health Study, a cohort of MSM recruited by RDS in Vancouver, Canada. Eligible men were given up to six RDS coupons to recruit their peers. The primary outcome was a count variable of each participant’s number of eligible recruits. Multivariable Poisson regression identified independent predictors of productive recruitment. In total, 719 individuals comprised this analysis, of which 119 were seeds. The distribution of eligible recruits was right skewed, with 391 (54.4 %) having never recruited another participant and only eight participants (1.1 %) having recruited five. Significant, independent predictors of recruiting one additional participant included network size per ten unit increase (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.03), being of Aboriginal race/ethnicity compared with White (aRR 1.51), being HIV-positive (aRR 1.31), being sexually active with only males (aRR 2.48), being single compared with common law/married (aRR 1.37), having recently read gay newspapers (aRR 1.58), having recently sought sex partners online (aRR 1.33) and being out to a male parent (aRR 1.30). This analysis demonstrates the importance of social network size in RDS adjustment, but also identifies other socio-demographic and behavioral variables that increased RDS coupon return, which may help researchers better operationalize the implementation of RDS.

Keywords

HIV Gay and bisexual men MSM Respondent-driven sampling RDS Recruitment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Momentum Study participants, office staff and community advisory board, as well as our community partner agencies, the Health Initiative for Men, YouthCO HIV, and HepC Society of BC, and the Positive Living Society of BC. Momentum is funded through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Grant #R01DA031055-01A1) and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (Grant # MOP-107544). NJL is supported by a CANFAR/CTN Postdoctoral Fellowship. DMM is supported by a Scholar Award from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

References

  1. 1.
    Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS. 2005; 19(2): S67–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson SK, Collins LM. Adaptive sampling in research on risk-related behaviors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002; 68(Suppl 1): S57–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malekinejad M, Johnston LG, Kendall C, Kerr LR, 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(4 Suppl): S105–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997; 44(2): 174–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heckathorn DD. Extensions of respondent‐driven sampling: analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociol Methodol. 2007; 37(1): 151–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gile KJ, Handcock MS. Respondent-driven sampling: an assessment of current methodology. Sociol Methodol. 2010; 40(1): 285–327.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu H, Li J, Ha T, Li J. Assessment of random recruitment assumption in respondent-driven sampling in egocentric network data. Soc Netw. 2012; 1(2): 13–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mills HL, Johnson S, Hickman M, Jones NS, Colijn C. Errors in reported degrees and respondent driven sampling: implications for bias. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014; 142: 120–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rudolph AE, Fuller CM, Latkin C. The importance of measuring and accounting for potential biases in respondent-driven samples. AIDS Behav. 2013; 17(6): 2244–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salganik MJ. Variance estimation, design effects, and sample size calculations for respondent-driven sampling. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(6 Suppl): i98–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sabin KM, Johnston LG. Epidemiological challenges to the assessment of HIV burdens among key populations: respondent-driven sampling, time-location sampling and demographic and health surveys. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2014; 9(2): 101–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    White RG, Hakim AJ, Salganik MJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: “STROBE-RDS” statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(12): 1463–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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(4 Suppl): S131–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reisner SL, Mimiaga MJ, Johnson CV, et al. What makes a respondent-driven sampling “seed” productive? Example of finding at-risk Massachusetts men who have sex with men. J Urban Health. 2010; 87(3): 467–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vuong QH. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica: J Econ Soc. 1989; 57(2): 307–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duncan KC, Reading C, Borwein AM, et al. HIV incidence and prevalence among aboriginal peoples in Canada. AIDS Behav. 2011; 15(1): 214–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joy R, Druyts EF, Brandson EK, et al. Impact of neighborhood-level socioeconomic status on HIV disease progression in a universal health care setting. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008; 47(4): 500–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore DM, Kanters S, Michelow W, et al. Implications for HIV prevention programs from a serobehavioural survey of men who have sex with men in Vancouver, British Columbia: the ManCount study. Can J Public Health. 2012; 103(2): 142–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kendall C, Kerr LR, Gondim RC, 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(4): S97–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCreesh N, Copas A, Seeley J, et al. Respondent driven sampling: determinants of recruitment and a method to improve point estimation. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10), e78402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhns LM, Kwon S, Ryan DT, Garofalo R, Phillips G 2nd, Mustanski BS. Evaluation of respondent-driven sampling in a study of urban young men who have sex with men. J Urban Health. 2015; 92(1): 151–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Truong HM, Grasso M, Chen YH, et al. Balancing theory and practice in respondent-driven sampling: a case study of innovations developed to overcome recruitment challenges. PLoS One. 2013; 8(8), e70344.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Forrest JI, Stevenson B, Rich A, et al. Community mapping and respondent-driven sampling of gay and bisexual men’s communities in Vancouver, Canada. Cult Health Sex. 2014; 16(3): 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie I. Forrest
    • 1
  • Nathan J. Lachowsky
    • 1
    • 2
  • Allan Lal
    • 2
  • Zishan Cui
    • 2
  • Paul Sereda
    • 2
  • Henry F. Raymond
    • 3
    • 4
  • Gina Ogilvie
    • 1
  • Eric A. Roth
    • 5
  • David Moore
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert S. Hogg
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDSVancouverCanada
  3. 3.San Francisco Department of Public HealthSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.University of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  6. 6.Faculty of Health SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations