Original articlesNonresponse in a community cohort study: Predictors and consequences for exposure–disease associations
Introduction
Several cross-sectional surveys have assessed the possible influence of nonresponse on the study results, including studies on patient samples 1, 2, working groups [3], and general population samples 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Limited knowledge is available on nonresponse to follow-up in community cohort studies. A 6-year cohort study on respiratory health of a rural community sample in Lebanon, CT, obtained a response rate at follow-up of 55% among those eligible [9]. The response rates at follow-up were significantly lower in smokers compared to nonsmokers, and in the age group 15–24 years compared to older age groups. In the follow-up survey of the first National Health Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I), data on responders and nonresponders by gender, age, and race were given, but no statistical analyses were performed [10].
It is not known whether employment status and readiness to respond at baseline might effect the response at follow-up in cohort studies of general population samples. To our knowledge, no study has examined how nonresponse at follow-up may effect the relationship between the exposure of interest and the incidence of the outcome variables.
We have performed an 11-year cohort study on respiratory health in a Norwegian general population. The objective of this report was to examine how response at follow-up varied with baseline data on gender, age, respiratory symptoms, and asthma, smoking habits, employment, and response. Furthermore, we wanted to assess how using two remind letters and one remind telephone call to the initial responders at follow-up affected the estimated relationships of gender, age, and smoking habits to the incidence of respiratory symptoms and asthma.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The baseline survey of this follow-up study was conducted in 1985. A detailed description of the sampling procedures and population characteristics are given elsewhere [7]. Briefly, the survey population consisted of 204,952 inhabitants aged 15–70 years, living in the city of Bergen and 11 surrounding municipalities. A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 3,786 subjects. After two remind letters a total of 89% had returned the questionnaire. The response rate was significantly
Results
Comparing the responders and nonresponders at follow-up by characteristics in 1985, there were no differences in gender and smoking habits (Table 1). There was a higher percentage of middle-aged subjects among the responders, and a lower percentage of the younger and older subjects, compared to the nonresponders. Among nonresponders in 1996/1997, 47.5% had been late responders in 1985 (i.e., responders to the first or second reminder), compared to 27.4% among the responders in 1996/1997 (Table
Discussion
The present study showed that subjects being employed and ready to respond early at baseline were the best responders at follow-up. However, increasing the response rate from 65 to 89% did not overtly alter the incidence rates of the five respiratory symptoms and asthma or their associations to gender, age, and smoking habits.
The high response rates, both at baseline and at follow-up, are in agreement with previous studies in Nordic general populations 14, 15, 16. Factors that might have
References (30)
- et al.
Patterns of non-response to a mail survey
J Clin Epidemiol
(1990) - et al.
The effect of non-response on risk ratios in a cardiovascular disease study
J Chronic Dis
(1979) - et al.
Investigating non-response bias in mail surveys
J Epidemiol Commun Health
(1981) - et al.
Characteristics of respondents and non-respondents to a mailed questionnarie
Am J Public Health
(1980) - et al.
Differences between respondents and non-respondents in a population-based cardiovascular disease study
Am J Epidemiol
(1978) Investigation of nonresponse bias in NHANES II
Am J Epidemiol
(1983)- et al.
The Tromso Heart Studyresponders and non-responders to a health questionnarie, do they differ?
Scand J Soc Med
(1988) - et al.
Postal survey on airborne occupational exposure and respiratory disorders in Norwaycauses and consequences of non-response
J Epidemiol Commun Health
(1990) - et al.
Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey
J Public Health Med
(1997) - et al.
A longitudinal study of respiratory health in a rural community
Am Rev Respir Dis
(1982)
Plan and operation of the NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study1982–84
Vital Health Stat
Measurements of respiratory symptoms and sample size to detect a given difference between treatment groups in obstructive lung disease
Eur Respir J
The cardiovascular disease study in Norwegian counties. Background and organization
Acta Med Scand Suppl
Serum thiocyanate and smokinginterpretation of serum thiocyanate levels observed in a large health study
Scand J Clin Lab Invest
Prevalence of respiratory symptoms in the city of Oslo
Scand J Respir Dis
Cited by (99)
Examining the continuum of resistance model in two population-based screening studies in Sweden
2023, Preventive Medicine ReportsCurrent asthma and asthma-like symptoms among workers at a Veterans Administration Medical Center
2017, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental HealthLarge panel-survey data demonstrated country-level and ethnic minority variation in consent for health record linkage
2015, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCash incentives improve participation rate in a face-to-face survey: An intervention study
2015, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology