Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Development and the Assessment of Sampling Methods for Hard-to-Reach Populations in HIV Surveillance

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to stigma or legal issues, populations with higher HIV risk are often hard to reach, which impedes accurate population estimation of HIV burden. To better sample hard-to-reach populations (HTRPs) for HIV surveillance, various sampling methods have been designed and/or used since HIV epidemic following the first reported AIDS cases in 1981. This paper describes the development and the assessment (i.e., validity and reproducibility) of approximately eight sampling methods (e.g., convenience sampling, snowball sampling, time location sampling, and respondent-driven sampling) for HTRPs in HIV surveillance, with a focus on respondent-driven sampling (RDS). Compared to other methods, RDS has been greatly assessed. However, current evidence is still inadequate for RDS to be considered the best option for sampling HTRPs. The field must continue to assess RDS and to develop new sampling approaches or modifications to existing approaches.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References  

  1. WHO. HIV/AIDS Fact Sheets. 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids. Accessed 25 Sept 2022.

  2. Wang H, Wolock TM, Carter A, Nguyen G, Kyu HH, Gakidou E, et al. Estimates of global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and mortality of HIV, 1980–2015: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet HIV. 2016;3(8):e361–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. UNAIDS. Global HIV & AIDS statistics—2022 Fact sheet. 2022. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet . Accessed 25  Sept 2022.

  4. UNAIDS. Global HIV & AIDS statistics—2020 fact sheet. 2020. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet. Accessed 24 Mar 2021.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sudman S, Sirken MG, Cowan CD. Sampling rare and elusive populations. Science. 1988;240(4855):991–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Amon J, Brown T, Hogle J, MacNeil J, Magnani R. Behavioral surveillance surveys: guidelines for repeated behavioral surveys in populations at risk of HIV. Arlington, VA: Family Health International; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. WHO, CDC, UNAIDS, FHI. Biobehavioural survey guidelines for populations at risk for HIV. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2017. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259951. Accessed 8 Sept 2021.

  9. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. CDC. Pneumocystis Pneumonia---Los Angeles. (MMWR). 1981. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/june_5.htm. Accessed 1 Feb 2023.

  11. Stall RD, Coates TJ, Hoff C. Behavioral risk reduction for HIV infection among gay and bisexual men: a review of results from the United States. Am Psychol. 1988;43(11):878–85.

  12. Klee H, Faugier J, Hayes C, Boulton T, Morris J. Factors associated with risk behaviour among injecting drug users. AIDS Care. 1990;2(2):133–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Williams AB. Reproductive concerns of women at risk for HIV infection. J Nurse Midwifery. 1990;35(5):292–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Reilly KR, Higgins DL. AIDS community demonstration projects for HIV prevention among hard-to-reach groups. Public Health Rep. 1991;106(6):714–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Morrison A, Elliott L, Gruer L. Injecting-related harm and treatment-seeking behaviour among injecting drug users. Addiction. 1997;92(10):1349–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Siegel K, Meyer IH. Hope and resilience in suicide ideation and behavior of gay and bisexual men following notification of HIV infection. AIDS Educ Prev Off Publ Int Soc AIDS Educ. 1999;11(1):53–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Biernacki P, Waldorf D. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Methods Res. 1981;10(2):141–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fullilove RE, Fullilove MT, Bowser BP, Gross SA. Risk of sexually transmitted disease among black adolescent crack users in Oakland and San Francisco. Calif JAMA. 1990;263(6):851–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Williams ML. HIV Infection among a national sample of adolescent intravenous drug abusers. Alcohol Treat Q. 1993;10(1–2):107–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Phillips AE, Boily MC, Lowndes CM, Garnett GP, Gurav K, Ramesh BM, et al. Sexual identity and its contribution to MSM risk behavior in Bengaluru (Bangalore), India: the results of a two-stage cluster sampling survey. J LGBT Health Res. 2008;4(2/3):111–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brody C, Chhoun P, Tuot S, Pal K, Chhim K, Yi S. HIV risk and psychological distress among female entertainment workers in Cambodia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36(4):416–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Carlson R, Wang J, Siegal H, Falck R, Guo J. An ethnographic approach to targeted sampling: problems and solutions in AIDS prevention research among injection drug and crack-cocaine users. Hum Organ. 1994;53(3):279–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. MacKellar D, Valleroy L, Karon J, Lemp G, Janssen R. The Young Men’s Survey: methods for estimating HIV seroprevalence and risk factors among young men who have sex with men. Public Health Rep. 1996;111(Suppl 1):138–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. van Griensven F, Thanprasertsuk S, Jommaroeng R, Mansergh G, Naorat S, Jenkins RA, et al. Evidence of a previously undocumented epidemic of HIV infection among men who have sex with men in Bangkok. Thailand AIDS. 2005;19(5):521–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. MacKellar DA, Gallagher KM, Finlayson T, Sanchez T, Lansky A, Sullivan PS. Surveillance of HIV risk and prevention behaviors of men who have sex with men—a national application of venue-based, time-space sampling. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(1_suppl):39–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Abdul-Quader AS, Heckathorn DD, Sabin K, Saidel T. Implementation and analysis of respondent driven sampling: lessons learned from the field. J Urban Health. 2006;83(S1):1–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lansky A, Abdul-Quader AS, Cribbin M, Hall T, Finlayson TJ, Garfein RS, et al. Developing an HIV behavioral surveillance system for injecting drug users: the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System. Public Health Rep Wash DC. 1974;2007(122 Suppl 1):48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Raymond HF, Chen YH, McFarland W. “Starfish sampling”: a novel, hybrid approach to recruiting hidden populations. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2019;96(1):55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson SK. Adaptive web sampling. Biometrics. 2006;62(4):1224–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thompson SK. Adaptive cluster sampling. J Am Stat Assoc. 1990;85(412):1050–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson SK, Collins LM. Adaptive sampling in research on risk-related behaviors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;68:57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Etikan I. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat. 2016;5:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Górny A, Napierała J. Comparing the effectiveness of respondent-driven sampling and quota sampling in migration research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2016;19(6):645–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Coleman JS. Relational analysis: the study of social organizations with survey methods. Hum Organ. 1958;17(4):28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat. 1961;32(1):148–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goodman LA. Comment: on respondent-driven sampling and snowball sampling in hard-to-reach populations and snowball sampling not in hard-to-reach populations. Sociol Methodol. 2011;41(1):347–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Heckathorn DD. Comment: snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol. 2011;41(1):355–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kowalewski MR. Double stigma and boundary maintenance: how gay men deal with AIDS. J Contemp Ethnogr. 1988;17(2):211–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Peterson JA, Reisinger HS, Schwartz RP, Mitchell SG, Kelly SM, Brown BS, et al. Targeted sampling in drug abuse research: a review and case study. Field Methods. 2008;20(2):155–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Skinner CJ. Probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. In: Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2016. pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat03346.pub2

  42. Gama A, Martins MO, Dias S, Global Health and Tropical Medicine, GHTM, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, IHMT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, UNL, Lisboa, Portugal. HIV research with men who have sex with men (MSM): advantages and challenges of different methods for most appropriately targeting a key population. AIMS Public Health. 2017;4(3):221–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Lemp GF, Hirozawa AM, Givertz D, Nieri GN, Anderson L, Lindegren ML, et al. Seroprevalence of HIV and risk behaviors among young homosexual and bisexual men: the San Francisco/Berkeley Young Men’s Survey. JAMA. 1994;272(6):449–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA, Secura GM, Behel S, Bingham T, Celentano DD, et al. Unrecognized HIV infection, risk behaviors, and perceptions of risk among young men who have sex with men: opportunities for advancing HIV prevention in the third decade of HIV/AIDS. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;38(5):603–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Semaan S, Lauby J, Liebman J. Street and network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction interventions. AIDS Rev. 2002;4(4):213–23.

  46. Cai WD, Zhao J, Zhao JK, Raymond HF, Feng YJ, Liu J, et al. HIV prevalence and related risk factors among male sex workers in Shenzhen, China: results from a time–location sampling survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2010;86(1):15–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. de Sousa MascenaVeras MA, Calazans GJ, de Almeida Ribeiro MCS, de Freitas Oliveira CA, Giovanetti MR, Facchini R, et al. High HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men in a time-location sampling survey, São Paulo, Brazil. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(9):1589–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mirandola M, Toda CF, Krampac I, Nita I, Stanekova D, Stehlikova D, et al. HIV bio-behavioural survey among men who have sex with men in Barcelona, Bratislava, Bucharest, Ljubljana, Prague and Verona, 2008–2009. Eurosurveillance. 2009;14(48):19427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 2002;49(1):11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD. Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol. 2004;34(1):193–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Volz E, Heckathorn DD. Probability based estimation theory for respondent driven sampling. J Official Stat. 2008;24:19.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gile KJ. Improved inference for respondent-driven sampling data with application to HIV prevalence estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 2011;106(493):135–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fellows IE. Respondent-driven sampling and the homophily configuration graph. Stat Med. 2019;38(1):131–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Abdesselam K, Verdery A, Pelude L, Dhami P, Momoli F, Jolly AM. The development of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) inference: a systematic review of the population mean and variance estimates. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;206:107702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Malekinejad M, Johnston LG, Kendall C, Kerr LRFS, 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):S105-130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Johnston LG, Hakim AJ, Dittrich S, Burnett J, Kim E, White RG. A systematic review of published respondent-driven sampling surveys collecting behavioral and biologic data. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(8):1754–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Avery L, Rotondi M. More comprehensive reporting of methods in studies using respondent driven sampling is required: a systematic review of the uptake of the STROBE-RDS guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;117:68–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Heckathorn DD, Cameron CJ. Network sampling: from snowball and multiplicity to respondent-driven sampling. Annu Rev Sociol. 2017;43(1):101–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Dzekedzeke K, Fylkesnes K. Reducing uncertainties in global HIV prevalence estimates: the case of Zambia. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Gouws E, Mishra V, Fowler TB. Comparison of adult HIV prevalence from national population-based surveys and antenatal clinic surveillance in countries with generalised epidemics: implications for calibrating surveillance data. Sex Transm Infect. 2008;84(Suppl 1):i17-23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Topp L, Barker B, Degenhardt L. The external validity of results derived from ecstasy users recruited using purposive sampling strategies. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;73(1):33–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Barratt MJ, Ferris JA, Lenton S. Hidden populations, online purposive sampling, and external validity: taking off the blindfold. Field Methods. 2015;27(1):3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Guignard R, Wilquin JL, Richard JB, Beck F. Tobacco smoking surveillance: is quota sampling an efficient tool for monitoring national trends? A Comparison with a Random Cross-Sectional Survey. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e78372.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Kral AH, Malekinejad M, Vaudrey J, Martinez AN, Lorvick J, McFarland W, et al. Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2010;87(5):839–50.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Xia Q, Tholandi M, Osmond DH, Pollack LM, Zhou W, Ruiz JD, et al. The effect of venue sampling on estimates of HIV prevalence and sexual risk behaviors in men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(9):545–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Leon L, Jauffret-Roustide M, Le Strat Y. Design-based inference in time-location sampling. Biostatistics. 2015;16(3):565–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Burt RD, Oster AM, Golden MR, Thiede H. Comparing study populations of men who have sex with men: evaluating consistency within repeat studies and across studies in the Seattle area using different recruitment methodologies. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(Suppl 3):370–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Peterson RA, Merunka DR. Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. J Bus Res. 2014;67(5):1035–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Barash VD, Cameron CJ, Spiller MW, Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling–testing assumptions: sampling with replacement. J Off Stat. 2016;32(1):29–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Shi Y, Cameron CJ, Heckathorn DD. Model-based and design-based inference: reducing bias due to differential recruitment in respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methods Res. 2019;48(1):3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sirianni AD, Cameron CJ, Shi Y, Heckathorn DD. Bias decomposition and estimator performance in respondent-driven sampling. Soc Netw. 2021;64:109–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Gile KJ, Handcock MS. Respondent-driven sampling: an assessment of current methodology. Sociol Methodol. 2010;40(1):285–327.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Lu X, Bengtsson L, Britton T, Camitz M, Kim BJ, Thorson A, et al. The sensitivity of respondent-driven sampling method. 2010.  Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2426v3. Accessed 7 Feb 2021.

  74. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Rudolph AE, Crawford ND, Latkin C, Heimer R, Benjamin EO, Jones KC, et al. Subpopulations of illicit drug users reached by targeted street outreach and respondent-driven sampling strategies: implications for research and public health practice. Ann Epidemiol. 2011;21(4):280–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Lansky A, Drake A, Wejnert C, Pham H, Cribbin M, Heckathorn DD. Assessing the assumptions of respondent-driven sampling in the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System among injecting drug users. Open AIDS J. 2012;6(1):77–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Wang J, Carlson RG, Falck RS, Siegal HA, Rahman A, Li L. Respondent-driven sampling to recruit MDMA users: a methodological assessment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;78(2):147–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 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 

  79. Liu H, Li J, Ha T, Li J. Assessment of random recruitment assumption in respondent-driven sampling in egocentric network data*. Soc Netw. 2012;01(02):13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Yamanis TJ, Merli MG, Neely WW, Tian FF, Moody J, Tu X, et al. An empirical analysis of the impact of recruitment patterns on RDS estimates among a socially ordered population of female sex workers in China. Sociol Methods Res. 2013;42(3):392–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Li J, Valente TW, Shin HS, Weeks M, Zelenev A, Moothi G, et al. Overlooked threats to respondent driven sampling estimators: peer recruitment reality, degree measures, and random selection assumption. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(7):2340–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Zeng L, Li J, Crawford FW. Empirical evidence of recruitment bias in a network study of people who inject drugs. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2019;45(5):460–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. McCreesh N, Frost SDW, Seeley J, Katongole J, Tarsh MN, Ndunguse R, et al. Evaluation of respondent-driven sampling. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2012;23(1):138–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Johnston LG, Trummal A, Lõhmus L, Ravalepik A. Efficacy of convenience sampling through the internet versus respondent driven sampling among males who have sex with males in Tallinn and Harju County, Estonia: challenges reaching a hidden population. AIDS Care. 2009;21(9):1195–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Robinson WT, Risser JMH, McGoy S, Becker AB, Rehman H, Jefferson M, et al. Recruiting injection drug users: a three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures. J Urban Health. 2006;83(S1):29–38.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Ramirez-Valles J, Heckathorn DD, Vázquez R, Diaz RM, Campbell RT. From networks to populations: the development and application of respondent-driven sampling among IDUs and Latino gay men. AIDS Behav. 2005;9(4):387–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Kendall C, Kerr LRFS, Gondim RC, Werneck GL, Macena RHM, Pontes MK, 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 

  88. Clark JL, Konda KA, Silva-Santisteban A, Peinado J, Lama JR, Kusunoki L, et al. Sampling methodologies for epidemiologic surveillance of men who have sex with men and transgender women in Latin America: an empiric comparison of convenience sampling, time space sampling, and respondent driven sampling. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(12):2338–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Burt RD, Thiede H. Evaluating consistency in repeat surveys of injection drug users recruited by respondent-driven sampling in the Seattle area: results from the NHBS-IDU1 and NHBS-IDU2 surveys. Ann Epidemiol. 2012;22(5):354–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Khatib A, Haji S, Khamis M, Said C, Khalid F, Dahoma M, et al. Reproducibility of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) in repeat surveys of men who have sex with men, Unguja. Zanzibar AIDS Behav. 2017;21(7):2180–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the help of Yingting Zhang (a research services librarian at the Robert Wood Johnson Library of the Health Sciences, Rutgers University) and Pamela Valera (an assistant professor at the School of Public Health, Rutgers University) for their guidance during the development of this literature search. The authors also acknowledge the comments of Stephanie Shiau (an assistant professor at the School of Public Health, Rutgers University) and Min Xu (an assistant professor at the Department of Statistics, Rutgers University).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Peng Wang

  2. School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Chongyi Wei & Henry F. Raymond

  3. San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Willi McFarland

Authors
  1. Peng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chongyi Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Willi McFarland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henry F. Raymond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry F. Raymond.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, P., Wei, C., McFarland, W. et al. The Development and the Assessment of Sampling Methods for Hard-to-Reach Populations in HIV Surveillance. J Urban Health (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00880-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00880-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation