Cited by 433HIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance in international settings: a systematic review

Malekinejad, Mohsen, Johnston, Lisa Grazina, Kendall, Carl, Kerr, Ligia Regina Franco Sansigolo, Rifkin, Marina Raven, Rutherford, George W.·2008·AIDS and Behavior

Abstract

To determine operational and analytical characteristics of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) in international settings and to explore factors that may affect recruitment of most-at-risk populations using RDS, we reviewed HIV biological and behavioral surveillance studies that used this method outside of the United States. We identified 123 eligible studies, 59 from Europe, 40 from Asia and the Pacific, 14 from Latin America, seven from Africa and three from Oceania. Studies collectively recruited 32,298 participants between 2003 and 2007; 53% of studies were conducted among injecting drug users, which generally had faster recruitment compared with studies among sex workers. All but 13 studies reached > or = 90% of their intended sample size, and six studies failed to reach equilibrium for key variables. This review has shown that RDS is an effective technique, when designed and implemented appropriately, to sample most-at-risk populations for HIV biological and behavioral surveys.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10461-008-9421-1

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most common intervention has been the respondent driven sampling (RDS) approach in which IDUs who have received a behavioral intervention are then given coupons to distribute within their social networks so these peers can then also receive the intervention.

    “The most common intervention has been the respondent driven sampling (RDS) approach in which IDUs who have received a behavioral intervention are then given coupons to distribute within their social networks so these peers can then also receive the intervention [61].”

    From Social Network Analysis for Program Implementation (2015) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malekinejad, M., Johnston, L. G., Kendall, C., Kerr, L. R. F. S., Rifkin, M. R., & Rutherford, G. W.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
  • New Mexico State University (US)
Corresponding author
Malekinejad, Mohsen
Venue
AIDS and Behavior
Published
2008-06-17
Volume
12
Issue
S1
Pages
105-130
ISSN
  • 1090-7165 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3254
OpenAlex
W2123624310
Cited by
433
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 37
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • AIDS and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
respondent-driven sampling, HIV surveillance, most-at-risk populations, people who inject drugs, sex workers, recruitment, HIV behavioral surveillance
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Population Surveillance, Risk-Taking, Sampling Studies, Sexual Behavior, HIV Infections, Internationality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review