How to mitigate selection bias in COVID-19 surveys: evidence from five national cohorts

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Martina K. Narayanan, Brian Dodgeon, Michail Katsoulis, George B. Ploubidis, Richard J. Silverwood
{"title":"How to mitigate selection bias in COVID-19 surveys: evidence from five national cohorts","authors":"Martina K. Narayanan, Brian Dodgeon, Michail Katsoulis, George B. Ploubidis, Richard J. Silverwood","doi":"10.1007/s10654-024-01164-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Non-response to surveys is a common problem; even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic with social distancing measures challenging data collection. As respondents often differ from non-respondents, this can introduce bias. The goal of the current study was to see if we can reduce bias and restore sample representativeness in a series of COVID-19 surveys embedded within five UK cohort studies by using the rich data available from previous waves of data collection. Three surveys were conducted during the pandemic across five UK cohorts: National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD, born 1946), 1958 National Child Development Study (NCDS), 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70), Next Steps (born 1989-90) and Millennium Cohort Study (MCS, born 2000-02). Response rates in the COVID-19 surveys were lower compared to previous waves, especially in the younger cohorts. We identified bias due to systematic non-response in several variables, with more respondents in the most advantaged social class and among those with higher childhood cognitive ability. Making use of the rich data available pre-pandemic in these longitudinal studies, the application of non-response weights and multiple imputation was successful in reducing bias in parental social class and childhood cognitive ability, nearly eliminating it for the former. Surveys embedded within existing cohort studies offer a clear advantage over cross-sectional samples collected during the pandemic in terms of their ability to mitigate selection bias. This will enhance the quality and reliability of future research studying the medium and long-term effects of the pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":11907,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Epidemiology","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01164-y","RegionNum":1,"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

Non-response to surveys is a common problem; even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic with social distancing measures challenging data collection. As respondents often differ from non-respondents, this can introduce bias. The goal of the current study was to see if we can reduce bias and restore sample representativeness in a series of COVID-19 surveys embedded within five UK cohort studies by using the rich data available from previous waves of data collection. Three surveys were conducted during the pandemic across five UK cohorts: National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD, born 1946), 1958 National Child Development Study (NCDS), 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70), Next Steps (born 1989-90) and Millennium Cohort Study (MCS, born 2000-02). Response rates in the COVID-19 surveys were lower compared to previous waves, especially in the younger cohorts. We identified bias due to systematic non-response in several variables, with more respondents in the most advantaged social class and among those with higher childhood cognitive ability. Making use of the rich data available pre-pandemic in these longitudinal studies, the application of non-response weights and multiple imputation was successful in reducing bias in parental social class and childhood cognitive ability, nearly eliminating it for the former. Surveys embedded within existing cohort studies offer a clear advantage over cross-sectional samples collected during the pandemic in terms of their ability to mitigate selection bias. This will enhance the quality and reliability of future research studying the medium and long-term effects of the pandemic.

如何减少 COVID-19 调查中的选择偏差:来自五个国家队列的证据
调查无响应是一个常见问题;在 COVID-19 大流行期间,由于社会疏远措施给数据收集带来了挑战,这一问题更加严重。由于受访者与非受访者往往不同,这可能会带来偏差。本研究的目标是了解我们是否能通过使用前几波数据收集中的丰富数据,在英国五项队列研究中嵌入一系列 COVID-19 调查,从而减少偏差并恢复样本的代表性。在大流行期间,对英国的五个队列进行了三次调查:全国健康与发展调查(NSHD,1946 年出生)、1958 年全国儿童发展研究(NCDS)、1970 年英国队列研究(BCS70)、下一步研究(1989-90 年出生)和千禧年队列研究(MCS,2000-02 年出生)。与前几次调查相比,COVID-19 调查的回复率较低,尤其是在较年轻的队列中。我们发现,在几个变量中,由于系统性无应答造成了偏差,在最优越的社会阶层和儿童认知能力较高的人群中,有更多的受访者。利用这些纵向研究中流行前的丰富数据,应用非响应权重和多重估算成功地减少了父母社会阶层和儿童认知能力方面的偏差,几乎消除了前者的偏差。与大流行期间收集的横断面样本相比,嵌入现有队列研究中的调查在减少选择偏差方面具有明显优势。这将提高未来研究大流行病中长期影响的质量和可靠性。
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
European Journal of Epidemiology
European Journal of Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
1.50%
发文量
109
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Epidemiology, established in 1985, is a peer-reviewed publication that provides a platform for discussions on epidemiology in its broadest sense. It covers various aspects of epidemiologic research and statistical methods. The journal facilitates communication between researchers, educators, and practitioners in epidemiology, including those in clinical and community medicine. Contributions from diverse fields such as public health, preventive medicine, clinical medicine, health economics, and computational biology and data science, in relation to health and disease, are encouraged. While accepting submissions from all over the world, the journal particularly emphasizes European topics relevant to epidemiology. The published articles consist of empirical research findings, developments in methodology, and opinion pieces.
×
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