Evaluating health status and risks among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities in Hawai'i: a respondent-driven sampling approach.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Mark L Willingham, Rodney S Teria, Louis Dulana, Grazyna Badowski, Kevin D Cassel
{"title":"Evaluating health status and risks among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities in Hawai'i: a respondent-driven sampling approach.","authors":"Mark L Willingham, Rodney S Teria, Louis Dulana, Grazyna Badowski, Kevin D Cassel","doi":"10.1007/s10552-024-01956-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a sampling method that relies on social networks to recruit hard-to-reach populations, and reduces the bias from non-random selection. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of RDS in collecting health assessment data from underrepresented populations not captured by traditional sampling techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An RDS study was conducted in Hawai'i between 2017 and 2018 of Native Hawaiians, Chuukese, and Marshallese participants. 1006 cases consisting of 352 seeds and 654 recruits were analyzed in conjunction with data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), filtered to include Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander participants (n = 1564). Missing network size data was imputed by RDSAnalyst and determined by the sample median network size. Weighted samples were compared for differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chi-square testing revealed significant differences between the RDS and BRFSS weighted samples across sex, age, education, income, and colon/cervical cancer screening variables. Only BMI group and smoking status exhibited no significant differences. RDS methods recruited participants efficiently within one year.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings indicate that RDS offers an effective sampling methodology when trying to reach hidden populations and provides more insight into the social networks of underserved communities as the transfer/utilization of health information may be linked to social connectedness.</p>","PeriodicalId":9432,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Causes & Control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Causes & Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-024-01956-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a sampling method that relies on social networks to recruit hard-to-reach populations, and reduces the bias from non-random selection. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of RDS in collecting health assessment data from underrepresented populations not captured by traditional sampling techniques.

Methods: An RDS study was conducted in Hawai'i between 2017 and 2018 of Native Hawaiians, Chuukese, and Marshallese participants. 1006 cases consisting of 352 seeds and 654 recruits were analyzed in conjunction with data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), filtered to include Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander participants (n = 1564). Missing network size data was imputed by RDSAnalyst and determined by the sample median network size. Weighted samples were compared for differences.

Results: Chi-square testing revealed significant differences between the RDS and BRFSS weighted samples across sex, age, education, income, and colon/cervical cancer screening variables. Only BMI group and smoking status exhibited no significant differences. RDS methods recruited participants efficiently within one year.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that RDS offers an effective sampling methodology when trying to reach hidden populations and provides more insight into the social networks of underserved communities as the transfer/utilization of health information may be linked to social connectedness.

评估夏威夷土著和太平洋岛民社区的健康状况和风险:受访者驱动的抽样方法。
目的:受访者驱动抽样(RDS)是一种依靠社会网络来招募难以接触到的人群的抽样方法,并减少了非随机选择的偏差。本研究旨在评估RDS在收集未被传统抽样技术捕获的代表性不足人群的健康评估数据方面的有效性。方法:2017年至2018年在夏威夷进行了一项RDS研究,参与者包括夏威夷原住民、楚克塞人和马绍尔人。研究人员结合2018年行为风险因素监测系统(BRFSS)的数据分析了1006个病例,其中包括352名种子和654名新兵,过滤后包括夏威夷原住民/其他太平洋岛民参与者(n = 1564)。缺失的网络大小数据由RDSAnalyst输入,并由样本中位数网络大小确定。加权样本比较差异。结果:卡方检验显示RDS和BRFSS加权样本在性别、年龄、教育程度、收入和结肠癌/宫颈癌筛查变量上存在显著差异。仅BMI组和吸烟状况无显著差异。RDS方法在一年内有效地招募了参与者。结论:研究结果表明,RDS在试图触及隐藏人群时提供了一种有效的抽样方法,并为了解服务不足社区的社会网络提供了更多见解,因为卫生信息的传递/利用可能与社会联系有关。
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
Cancer Causes & Control
Cancer Causes & Control 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
130
审稿时长
6.6 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Causes & Control is an international refereed journal that both reports and stimulates new avenues of investigation into the causes, control, and subsequent prevention of cancer. By drawing together related information published currently in a diverse range of biological and medical journals, it has a multidisciplinary and multinational approach. The scope of the journal includes: variation in cancer distribution within and between populations; factors associated with cancer risk; preventive and therapeutic interventions on a population scale; economic, demographic, and health-policy implications of cancer; and related methodological issues. The emphasis is on speed of publication. The journal will normally publish within 30 to 60 days of acceptance of manuscripts. Cancer Causes & Control publishes Original Articles, Reviews, Commentaries, Opinions, Short Communications and Letters to the Editor which will have direct relevance to researchers and practitioners working in epidemiology, medical statistics, cancer biology, health education, medical economics and related fields. The journal also contains significant information for government agencies concerned with cancer research, control and policy.
×
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