38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sample selection, recruitment and participation rates in health examination surveys in Europe – experience from seven national surveys

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Background

          Health examination surveys (HESs), carried out in Europe since the 1950’s, provide valuable information about the general population’s health for health monitoring, policy making, and research. Survey participation rates, important for representativeness, have been falling. International comparisons are hampered by differing exclusion criteria and definitions for non-response.

          Method

          Information was collected about seven national HESs in Europe conducted in 2007–2012. These surveys can be classified into household and individual-based surveys, depending on the sampling frames used. Participation rates of randomly selected adult samples were calculated for four survey modules using standardised definitions and compared by sex, age-group, geographical areas within countries, and over time, where possible.

          Results

          All surveys covered residents not just citizens; three countries excluded those in institutions. In two surveys, physical examinations and blood sample collection were conducted at the participants’ home; the others occurred at examination clinics. Recruitment processes varied considerably between surveys. Monetary incentives were used in four surveys. Initial participation rates aged 35–64 were 45 % in the Netherlands (phase II), 54 % in Germany (new and previous participants combined), 55 % in Italy, and 65 % in Finland. In Ireland, England and Scotland, household participation rates were 66 %, 66 % and 63 % respectively. Participation rates were generally higher in women and increased with age. Almost all participants attending an examination centre agreed to all modules but surveys conducted in the participants’ home had falling responses to each stage. Participation rates in most primate cities were substantially lower than the national average. Age-standardized response rates to blood pressure measurement among those aged 35–64 in Finland, Germany and England fell by 0.7-1.5 percentage points p.a. between 1998–2002 and 2010–2012. Longer trends in some countries show a more marked fall.

          Conclusions

          The coverage of the general population in these seven national HESs was good, based on the sampling frames used and the sample sizes. Pre-notification and reminders were used effectively in those with highest participation rates. Participation rates varied by age, sex, geographical area, and survey design. They have fallen in most countries; the Netherlands data shows that they can be maintained at higher levels but at much higher cost.

          Related collections

          Most cited references103

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys

          R. Groves (2006)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Participation rates in epidemiologic studies.

            Participation rates for epidemiologic studies have been declining during the past 30 years with even steeper declines in recent years. This wholesale decrease in participation rate, or at the very least the increase in refusal, has, quite understandably, occasioned some concern among epidemiologists who have long considered a high study participation rate as one of the hallmarks of a "good" epidemiologic study. In this review we synthesize the issues that are central to epidemiologic thinking around declining study participation rates. We consider the reasons why study participation has been declining, summarize what we know about who does participate in epidemiologic studies, and discuss the implications of declining participation rates. We conclude with a discussion of methods that may help improve study participation rates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44-20-7679-1269 , j.mindell@ucl.ac.uk
                simona.giampaoli@iss.it
                goesswalda@rki.de
                kamtsiurisp@rki.de
                charlottemann@hotmail.com
                satu.mannisto@thl.fi
                kmorgan@rcsi.ie
                n.shelton@ucl.ac.uk
                monique.verschuren@rivm.nl
                hanna.tolonen@thl.fi
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                5 October 2015
                5 October 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 78
                Affiliations
                [ ]Research Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT UK
                [ ]Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena n. 299, Rome, Italy
                [ ]Department 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring Division 25, Robert Koch Institute, Examination surveys and Cohort studies, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, Berlin, 12101 Germany
                [ ]Department of Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FI-00271 Finland
                [ ]Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
                [ ]Perdana University, Serdang, Malaysia
                [ ]Department Chronic Diseases Determinants, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, Bilthoven, 3720 BA The Netherlands
                Article
                72
                10.1186/s12874-015-0072-4
                4595185
                26438235
                aca296f8-9060-4f0c-956f-3a545d6879a8
                © Mindell et al. 2015

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 10 March 2015
                : 24 September 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                europe,health examination survey,sampling frame,sample size,eligibility,recruitment,incentives,participation rates,response

                Comments

                Comment on this article