A low response rate does not necessarily indicate non-response bias in gastroenterology survey research: a population-based study
- 538 Downloads
To estimate the potential for response bias in standard mailed questionnaires used in surveys of GI symptoms in a community.
Subjects and methods
Validated self-report tools have been developed to measure functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders but response rates in community surveys have been rapidly declining in many parts of the world. Whether a lower community response rate introduces significant response bias in GI survey research is unknown. A questionnaire was mailed to a total of 5,069 randomly selected subjects. The overall response rate was 52 %. A random sample of 723 of these subjects (428 responders and 295 non-responders, stratified by age and gender) was selected for medical record abstraction (including both inpatient and outpatient history).
The odds for response increased in those with a higher body mass index (odds ratio (OR):1.02 [95 % CI: 1.01, 1.03]), more health care seeking behavior for non-GI problems (OR: 1.97 [95 % CI: 1.43, 2.72]), and for those who had responded to a previous survey (OR: 4.84 [95 % CI: 2.84, 8.26]). Responder status was not significantly associated with any GI symptoms or a diagnosis of GI or non-GI disease (with two exceptions, diverticulosis and skin disease).
Despite a response rate of only 52 %, the results of a community-based GI survey do not appear to be impacted by non-response bias in a major way. A low survey response rate does not necessarily indicate non-response bias.
KeywordsResponse Bias Gastrointestinal surveys Population
- Atrostic BK, Bates N, Burt G, Silberstein A (2001) Nonresponse in US Government household surveys: consistent measures, recent trends, and new insights. J Off Stat 17(2):209–226Google Scholar
- Brehm JO (1993) The phantom respondents: opinion surveys and political representation. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
- de Leeuw E, de Heer W (2002) Trends in household survey nonresponse: a longitudinal and international comparison. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (eds) survey nonresponse. Wiley, New York, pp 41–54Google Scholar
- Goldberg M, Chastang JF, Leclerc A, Zins M, Bonenfant S, Bugel I et al (2001) 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. Am J Epidemiol 154(4):373–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hara M, Sasaki S, Sobue T, Yamamoto S, Tsugane S (2002) Comparison of cause-specific mortality between respondents and nonrespondents in a population-based prospective study: ten-year follow-up of JPHC Study Cohort I. Japan Public Health Center. J Clin Epidemiol 55(2):150–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Steeh C, Kirgis N, Cannon B, DeWitt J (2001) Are they really as bad as they seem? Nonresponse rates at the end of the twentieth century. J Off Stat 17(2):227–247Google Scholar