Cited by 12Survey Methodology and NonresponseStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyEthics in Clinical Research

Assessment of demographic and perinatal predictors of non-response and impact of non-response on measures of association in a population-based case control study: Findings from the Georgia Study to Explore Early Development

Open access
Schieve, Laura A., Harris, Shericka, Maenner, Matthew J., Alexander, Aimee, Dowling, Nicole F.·2018·Emerging Themes in Epidemiology

Abstract

Background: Participation in epidemiologic studies has declined, raising concerns about selection bias. While estimates derived from epidemiologic studies have been shown to be robust under a wide range of scenarios, additional empiric study is needed. The Georgia Study to Explore Early Development (GA SEED), a population-based case–control study of risk factors for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), provided an opportunity to explore factors associated with non-participation and potential impacts of non-participation on association studies. Methods: GA SEED recruited preschool-aged children residing in metropolitan-Atlanta during 2007–2012. Children with ASD were identified from multiple schools and healthcare providers serving children with disabilities; children from the general population (POP) were randomly sampled from birth records. Recruitment was via mailed invitation letter with follow-up phone calls. Eligibility criteria included birth and current residence in study area and an English-speaking caregiver. Many children identified for potential inclusion could not be contacted. We used data from birth certificates to examine demographic and perinatal factors associated with participation in GA SEED and completion of the data collection protocol. We also compared ASD-risk factor associations for the final sample of children who completed the study with the initial sample of all likely ASD and POP children invited to potentially participate in the study, had they been eligible. Finally, we derived post-stratification sampling weights for participants who completed the study and compared weighted and unweighted associations between ASD and two factors collected via post-enrollment maternal interview: infertility and reproductive stoppage. Results: Maternal age and education were independently associated with participation in the POP group. Maternal education was independently associated with participation in the ASD group. Numerous other demographic and perinatal factors were not associated with participation. Moreover, unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for associations between ASD and several demographic and perinatal factors were similar between the final sample of study completers and the total invited sample. Odds ratios for associations between ASD and infertility and reproductive stoppage were also similar in unweighted and weighted analyses of the study completion sample. Conclusions: These findings suggest that effect estimates from SEED risk factor analyses, particularly those of non-demographic factors, are likely robust.

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/s12982-018-0081-y

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • At one site, a responder-non-responder comparison showed that maternal age, education, and race/ethnicity predicted participation, but adjusted risk-factor analyses were largely robust to non-response bias.

    “However, an analysis that compared characteristics of responders and non-responders at one site found that, although maternal age, education, and race/ethnicity predicted study participation, risk factor analyses adjusted for these sociodemographic variables were generally robust to the impact of non-response bias (61).”

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
Schieve, L. A., Harris, S., Maenner, M. J., Alexander, A., & Dowling, N. F.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Schieve, Laura A.
Venue
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
Published
2018-08-16
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
12-12
ISSN
1742-7622 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2885439989
Cited by
12
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Emerging Themes in Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
selection bias, autism spectrum disorder, risk factors, maternal age, maternal education, infertility, perinatal factors, research participation

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