The healthy participant effect: insights and results from a population-based case-control study on breast cancer.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Kevin Maldonado-Cañón, Annika Möhl, Nadia Obi, Sabine Behrens, Fabian Flaßkamp, Petra Seibold, Jenny Chang-Claude, Heiko Becher
{"title":"The healthy participant effect: insights and results from a population-based case-control study on breast cancer.","authors":"Kevin Maldonado-Cañón, Annika Möhl, Nadia Obi, Sabine Behrens, Fabian Flaßkamp, Petra Seibold, Jenny Chang-Claude, Heiko Becher","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Agreement to participate in case-control studies has become low. Healthy participant bias resulting from differential response proportions in cases and controls can distort results; however, the magnitude of bias is difficult to assess. We investigated the effect in a large population-based case-control study on breast cancer, with a participation rate of 43.4% and 64.1% for controls and cases, respectively. We performed a mortality follow-up in 2020 for 3813 cases and 7335 controls recruited during 2002-2005. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for overall mortality and selected causes of death were estimated. The mean age at recruitment was 63.1 years. The overall mortality for controls was 0.66 times lower (95% CI, 0.62-0.69) than for the reference population. For causes of death other than breast cancer, SMRs were similar in cases and controls (0.70 and 0.64). Higher education was associated with lower SMRs in both cases and controls. Options for adjusting the healthy participant bias are limited if the true risk factor distribution in the underlying population is unknown. However, a relevant bias in this particular case-control study is considered unlikely since a similar healthy participant effect was observed for both controls and cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1058-1064"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae155","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Agreement to participate in case-control studies has become low. Healthy participant bias resulting from differential response proportions in cases and controls can distort results; however, the magnitude of bias is difficult to assess. We investigated the effect in a large population-based case-control study on breast cancer, with a participation rate of 43.4% and 64.1% for controls and cases, respectively. We performed a mortality follow-up in 2020 for 3813 cases and 7335 controls recruited during 2002-2005. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for overall mortality and selected causes of death were estimated. The mean age at recruitment was 63.1 years. The overall mortality for controls was 0.66 times lower (95% CI, 0.62-0.69) than for the reference population. For causes of death other than breast cancer, SMRs were similar in cases and controls (0.70 and 0.64). Higher education was associated with lower SMRs in both cases and controls. Options for adjusting the healthy participant bias are limited if the true risk factor distribution in the underlying population is unknown. However, a relevant bias in this particular case-control study is considered unlikely since a similar healthy participant effect was observed for both controls and cases.

健康参与者效应:一项基于人群的乳腺癌病例对照研究的启示和结果。
参与病例对照研究的同意率很低。由于病例和对照组的应答比例不同而导致的健康参与者偏倚会扭曲研究结果;然而,偏倚的程度却很难评估。我们在一项关于乳腺癌的大型人群病例对照研究中调查了这种影响,对照组和病例组的参与率分别为 43.4% 和 64.1%。我们在 2020 年对 2002-2005 年间招募的 3813 例病例和 7335 例对照进行了死亡率随访。我们估算了总死亡率和选定死因的标准化死亡率(SMR)。招募时的平均年龄为 63.1 岁。对照组的总死亡率比参照人群低 0.66 倍(95%CI 0.62-0.69)。就乳腺癌以外的死因而言,病例和对照组的 SMR 值相似(分别为 0.70 和 0.64)。在病例和对照组中,教育程度越高,SMRs 越低。如果基础人群中真实的风险因素分布情况不明,那么调整健康参与者偏倚的选择就很有限。不过,由于在对照组和病例中都观察到了类似的健康参与者效应,因此在这项特定的病例对照研究中出现相关偏倚的可能性不大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信