Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Recruitment Bias in Respondent-Driven Sampling: Implications for HIV Prevalence Estimation in Urban Heterosexuals

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a study design used to investigate populations for which a probabilistic sampling frame cannot be efficiently generated. Biases in parameter estimates may result from systematic non-random recruitment within social networks by geography. We investigate the spatial distribution of RDS recruits relative to an inferred social network among heterosexual adults in New York City in 2010. Mean distances between recruitment dyads are compared to those of network dyads to quantify bias. Spatial regression models are then used to assess the impact of spatial structure on risk and prevalence outcomes. In our primary distance metric, network dyads were an average of 1.34 (95 % CI 0.82–1.86) miles farther dispersed than recruitment dyads, suggesting spatial bias. However, there was no evidence that demographic associations with HIV risk or prevalence were spatially confounded. Therefore, while the spatial structure of recruitment may be biased in heterogeneous urban settings, the impact of this bias on estimates of outcome measures appears minimal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heckathorn D. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociol Methodol. 2007;37(1):151–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS. 2005;19(Suppl 2):S67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Des Jarlais DC, Arasteh K, Hagan H, McKnight C, Perlman DC, Friedman SR. Persistence and change in disparities in HIV infection among injection drug users in New York City after large-scale syringe exchange programs. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(Suppl 2):S445–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hathaway AD, Hyshka E, Erickson PG, et al. Whither RDS? An investigation of respondent driven sampling as a method of recruiting mainstream marijuana users. Harm Reduct J. 2010;7:15.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Simic M, Johnston LG, Platt L, et al. Exploring barriers to ‘respondent driven sampling’ in sex worker and drug-injecting sex worker populations in Eastern Europe. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6 Suppl):i6–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goel S, Salganik MJ. Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(15):6743.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wejnert C, Heckathorn DD. Web-based network sampling efficiency and efficacy of respondent-driven sampling for online research. Sociol Methods Res. 2008;37(1):105–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rothenberg R, Muth SQ, Malone S, Potterat JJ, Woodhouse DE. Social and geographic distance in HIV risk. Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32(8):506–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Toledo L, Codeco CT, Bertoni N, Albuquerque E, Malta M, Bastos FI. Putting respondent-driven sampling on the map: insights from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;57(Suppl 3):S136–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCreesh N, Frost SDW, Seeley J, et al. Evaluation of respondent-driven sampling. Epidemiology. 2012;23(1):138–47.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McCreesh N, Johnston LG, Copas A, et al. Evaluation of the role of location and distance in recruitment in respondent-driven sampling. Int J Health Geogr. 2011;10:56.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shepard CW, Gortakowski HW, Nasrallah H, Cutler BH, Begier EM. Using GIS-based density maps of HIV surveillance data to identify previously unrecognized geographic foci of HIV burden in an urban epidemic. Public Health Rep. 2011;126(5):741–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV infection among heterosexuals at increased risk—United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(10):183–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Reilly KH, Neaigus A, Jenness SM, Hagan H, Wendel T, Gelpi-Acosta C. High HIV prevalence among low-income, Black Women in New York city with self-reported HIV negative and unknown status. J Womens Health. 2013;22(9):745–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jenness SM, Neaigus A, Murrill CS, Wendel T, Forgione L, Hagan H. Estimated HIV incidence among high-risk heterosexuals in New York City, 2007. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;56(2):193–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bivand RS, Pebesma EJ, Gomez-Rubio V. Applied spatial data analysis with R. New York: Springer; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wood SN. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 2011;73(1):3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44:174–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnston LG, Whitehead S, Simic-Lawson M, Kendall C. Formative research to optimize respondent-driven sampling surveys among hard-to-reach populations in HIV behavioral and biological surveillance: lessons learned from four case studies. AIDS Care. 2010;22(6):784–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Salganik MJ. Variance estimation, design effects, and sample size calculations for respondent-driven sampling. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6 Suppl):i98–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ott M, Gile KJ, Uuskula A, Johnston LG. Spatial dependencies in respondent-driven sampling data. Redondo Beach: Sunbelt XXXII; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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 Suppl):S97–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a cooperative agreement between the New York City Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (#U62/CCU223595-03-1). We would like to thank the NYC NHBS field staff for all their efforts on the study. We also greatly appreciate the insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript from three anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, 1959 Pacific Street NE, Box 357236, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Samuel M. Jenness

  2. New York City Department of Health, HIV Epidemiology Program, New York, NY, USA

    Alan Neaigus

  3. Department of Anthropology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA

    Travis Wendel

  4. Department of Sociology, The New School, New York, NY, USA

    Camila Gelpi-Acosta

  5. College of Nursing, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Holly Hagan

Authors
  1. Samuel M. Jenness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan Neaigus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Travis Wendel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Camila Gelpi-Acosta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Holly Hagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel M. Jenness.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jenness, S.M., Neaigus, A., Wendel, T. et al. Spatial Recruitment Bias in Respondent-Driven Sampling: Implications for HIV Prevalence Estimation in Urban Heterosexuals. AIDS Behav 18, 2366–2373 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0640-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0640-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation