Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Empirical evidence of recruitment bias in a network study of people who inject drugs.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic surveys of people who inject drugs (PWID) can be difficult to conduct because potential participants may fear exposure or legal repercussions. Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a procedure in which subjects recruit their eligible social contacts. The statistical validity of RDS surveys of PWID and other risk groups depends on subjects recruiting at random from among their network contacts.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop and apply a rigorous definition and statistical tests for uniform network recruitment in an RDS survey.

METHODS: We undertook a detailed study of recruitment bias in a unique RDS study of PWID in Hartford, CT, the USA in which the network, individual-level covariates, and social link attributes were recorded. A total of n = 527 participants (402 male, 123 female, and two individuals who did not specify their gender) within a network of 2626 PWID were recruited.

RESULTS: We found strong evidence of recruitment bias with respect to age, homelessness, and social relationship characteristics. In the discrete model, the estimated hazard ratios regarding the significant features of recruitment time and choice of recruitee were: alter's age 1.03 [1.02, 1.05], alter's crack-using status 0.70 [0.50, 1.00], homelessness difference 0.61 [0.43, 0.87], and sharing activities in drug preparation 2.82 [1.39, 5.72]. Under both the discrete and continuous-time recruitment regression models, we reject the null hypothesis of uniform recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS: The results provide the evidence that for this study population of PWID, recruitment bias may significantly alter the sample composition, making results of RDS surveys less reliable. More broadly, RDS studies that fail to collect comprehensive network data may not be able to detect biased recruitment when it occurs.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app