13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Brief Report: Respondent-driven Sampling Estimators Under Real and Theoretical Recruitment Conditions of Female Sex Workers in China.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We compare the performance of multiple respondent-driven sampling estimators under different sample recruitment conditions in hidden populations of female sex workers in the midst of China's ongoing epidemic of sexually transmitted infections. We first examine empirically calibrated simulations grounded in survey data to evaluate the relative performance of each estimator under ideal sampling conditions consistent with respondent-driven sampling assumptions and under conditions that mimic observed respondent-driven sampling recruitment processes. One estimator, which incorporates respondents' reports on their network of contacts, substantially out-performs the others under all conditions. We then apply the estimators to empirical samples of female sex workers collected in two Chinese cities that include unique data on respondents' networks. These empirical results are consistent with the simulation results, suggesting that traditional respondent-driven sampling estimators overestimate the proportion of female sex workers working in low tiers of sex work and are likely to overstate the sexually transmitted infection risk profiles of these populations.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Epidemiology
          Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)
          1531-5487
          1044-3983
          Sep 2015
          : 26
          : 5
          Affiliations
          [1 ] From the aDepartment of Sociology and Criminology, Population Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; bDepartment of Sociology and Duke Global Health Institute, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke Population Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC; cDepartment of Sociology, Duke Population Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC; dKing Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; eDepartment of Sociology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE; and fDepartment of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC.
          Article
          NIHMS729834
          10.1097/EDE.0000000000000335
          26214337
          4f96c008-7d90-4895-a278-abb32b0ef997
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article