Non-Participation in the Second Wave of the Part Study on Mental Disorder and Its Effects on Risk Estimates

Abstract

Although the true prevalence of distress and disorder is underestimated, the true associations between potential determinants and the outcomes seem reasonably well reproduced.

Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

“…Reference Baseline 50 To evaluate potential predictors of retention in a cohort study and selection bias effect in rate ratio 54 To ated with participation, in spite of its importance in some of them 11,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25 . Study region showed no association with participation, in spite of the diversity of places evaluated.…”

A Biopsychosocial and Long Term Perspective on Child Behavioral Problems : Impact of Risk and Resilience

“…However, selective attrition might be problematic for the generalizability of the results. Individuals of socioeconomic disadvantage, ethnic minorities and those in poor health, for example, are more prone to non-response in studies (Bergman et al, 2010;Patel et al, 2003). In the present study, dropouts differed from participants regarding PPD (study I), ethnicity/parental immigrating status (study II-IV) and experience of early life stress (study II-IV).…”

“…The extent to which a skewed dropout actually biases the results is debated. Some researchers did see an effect of selective attrition (Scott, 2004) while others did not (Bergman et al, 2010). Different strategies to minimize the attrition rate have been proposed and evaluated.…”

Social isolation, survey nonresponse, and nonresponse bias: An empirical evaluation using social network data within an organization

“…The number of self-reported friends or confidants is also used to evaluate the relationship between survey nonresponse and social network isolation (Hampton et al, 2011;McPherson et al, 2006McPherson et al, , 2008Bergman et al, 2010). This personal (ego) network measure improves on previous measures of social network isolation by measuring actual social connections rather than social participation.…”

“…First, this measure is generally only available for respondents and is missing for nonrespondents. One study on attrition, however, found that wave one respondents who reported no confidants were less likely to participate in wave two (Bergman et al, 2010). Second, self-reported personal networks are prone to recall bias as respondents forget to mention people in their networks leading to the under-reporting of network size (Brewer and Webster, 1999;Killworth and Bernard, 1976).…”