CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 423Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survey non-response in the Netherlands: Effects on prevalence estimates and associations

Van Loon, A·2003·Annals of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/s1047-2797(02)00257-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Differences in respondent characteristics may lead to bias in prevalence estimates and bias in associations. Both forms of non-response bias are investigated in a study on psychosocial factors and cancer risk, which is a sub-study of a large-scale monitoring survey in the Netherlands.Methods Respondents of a cross-sectional monitoring project (MORGEN; N = 22,769) were also asked to participate in a prospective study on psychosocial factors and cancer risk (HLEQ; N = 12,097). To investigate diverse aspects of non-response in the HLEQ on prevalence estimates and associations are studied, based on information gathered in the MORGEN-project.Results A response percentage of 45% was obtained in the MORGEN-project. Response rates were found to be lower among men and younger people. The HLEQ showed a response percentage of 56%, and respondents reported higher socioeconomic status, better subjective health and healthier lifestyle behaviors than non-respondents. However, associations between smoking status and either socioeconomic status or subjective health based on respondents only were not statistically different from those based on the entire MORGEN-population.Conclusion Non-response leads to bias in prevalence estimates of current smoking, current alcohol intake, and low physical activity or poor subjective health. However, non-response did not cause bias in the examined associations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1047-2797(02)00257-0

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 423

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Van Loon, A.
Venue
Annals of Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-02
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
105-110
ISSN
1047-2797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1047-2797(02)00257-0
OpenAlex
W2165713489
Cited by
423
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 22
FWCI
55.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Annals of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
survey nonresponse, nonresponse bias, prevalence estimates, psychosocial factors, cancer risk, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, self-rated health, socioeconomic status, response rate
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Life Style, Male, Netherlands, Smoking, Socioeconomic Factors, Bias, Prevalence

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