Cited by 421Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesHealth and Medical Studies

The impact of non-response bias due to sampling in public health studies: A comparison of voluntary versus mandatory recruitment in a Dutch national survey on adolescent health

Open access
Cheung, Kei Long, ten Klooster, Peter M., Smit, Cees, de Vries, Hein, Pieterse, Marcel E.·2017·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In public health monitoring of young people it is critical to understand the effects of selective non-response, in particular when a controversial topic is involved like substance abuse or sexual behaviour. Research that is dependent upon voluntary subject participation is particularly vulnerable to sampling bias. As respondents whose participation is hardest to elicit on a voluntary basis are also more likely to report risk behaviour, this potentially leads to underestimation of risk factor prevalence. Inviting adolescents to participate in a home-sent postal survey is a typical voluntary recruitment strategy with high non-response, as opposed to mandatory participation during school time. This study examines the extent to which prevalence estimates of adolescent health-related characteristics are biased due to different sampling methods, and whether this also biases within-subject analyses. METHODS: Cross-sectional datasets collected in 2011 in Twente and IJsselland, two similar and adjacent regions in the Netherlands, were used. In total, 9360 youngsters in a mandatory sample (Twente) and 1952 youngsters in a voluntary sample (IJsselland) participated in the study. To test whether the samples differed on health-related variables, we conducted both univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for any demographic difference between the samples. Additional multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to examine moderating effects of sampling method on associations between health-related variables. RESULTS: As expected, females, older individuals, as well as individuals with higher education levels, were over-represented in the voluntary sample, compared to the mandatory sample. Respondents in the voluntary sample tended to smoke less, consume less alcohol (ever, lifetime, and past four weeks), have better mental health, have better subjective health status, have more positive school experiences and have less sexual intercourse than respondents in the mandatory sample. No moderating effects were found for sampling method on associations between variables. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of first studies to provide strong evidence that voluntary recruitment may lead to a strong non-response bias in health-related prevalence estimates in adolescents, as compared to mandatory recruitment. The resulting underestimation in prevalence of health behaviours and well-being measures appeared large, up to a four-fold lower proportion for self-reported alcohol consumption. Correlations between variables, though, appeared to be insensitive to sampling bias.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-017-4189-8

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheung, K. L., ten Klooster, P. M., Smit, C., de Vries, H., & Pieterse, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Twente (NL)
Corresponding author
Cheung, Kei Long
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2017-03-23
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
276-276
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2599374901
Cited by
421
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
50.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Studies
Keywords
nonresponse bias, sampling bias, voluntary recruitment, adolescent health, adolescent substance use, alcohol consumption, smoking, sexual behavior, mental health, school experience, prevalence estimation, school-based survey
MeSH terms
Adolescent Health, Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Netherlands, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Schools, Bias, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Patient Selection, Substance-Related Disorders, Young Adult

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