Invited commentary: Evaluating epidemiologic research methods - The importance of response rate calculation

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 172, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 645-647

  Harris, M Anne ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

breast neoplasms; confidentiality; data collection; ethics; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; jurisprudence; privacy; quality of health care

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CASE REPORT; DISEASE REGISTRY; FUTUROLOGY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RECORD; NOTE; POPULATION RESEARCH; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONFIDENTIALITY; FEMALE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSURANCE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA COLLECTION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; PATIENT SELECTION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77956901755     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq219     Document Type: Note

References (16)

1. Gordis L, Gold E, Seltser R. Privacy protection in epidemiologic and medical research: a challenge and a responsibility. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;105(3):163-168.
2. Clark NA, Demers PA, Karr CJ, et al. Effect of early life exposure to air pollution on development of childhood asthma. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(2):284-290.
3. Hanley GE, Morgan S. Chronic catastrophes: exploring the concentration and sustained nature of ambulatory prescription drug expenditures in the population of British Columbia, Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(5):919-924.
4. Pukkala E, Martinsen JI, Lynge E, et al. Occupation and cancer-follow-up of 15 million people in five Nordic countries. Acta Oncol. 2009;48(5):646-790.
5. Harris MA, Levy AR, Teschke KE. Personal privacy and public health: potential impacts of privacy legislation on health research in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2008;99(4): 293-296.
6. Barrett G, Cassell JA, Peacock JL, et al. National survey of British publics views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry. BMJ. 2006;332(7549):1068-1072.
7. Nattinger AB, Pezzin LE, Sparapani RA, et al. Heightened attention to medical privacy: challenges for unbiased sample recruitment and a possible solution. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(6):637-644.
8. Slattery ML, Edwards SL, Caan BJ, et al. Response rates among control subjects in case-control studies. Ann Epidemiol. 1995;5(3):245-249.
9. Moorman PG, Newman B, Millikan RC, et al. Participation rates in a case-control study: the impact of age, race, and race of interviewer. Ann Epidemiol. 1999;9(3): 188-195.
10. Teschke K, Marino S, Chu R, et al. Public opinions about participating in health research. Can J Public Health. 2010; 101(2):159-164.
11. Rohan TE, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA. A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128(3):478-489.
12. Watson M, Haviland JS, Greer S, et al. Influence of psychological response on survival in breast cancer: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 1999;354(9187): 1331-1336.
13. Thorlacius S, Struewing JP, Hartge P, et al. Population-based study of risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA2 mutation. Lancet. 1998;352(9137):1337-1339.
14. Slattery ML, Sweeney C, Edwards S, et al. Body size, weight change, fat distribution and breast cancer risk in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007; 102(1):85-101. (Pubitemid 46294955)
15. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Revised 2008. Deerfield, IL: American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2008. (http://www.aapor.org/standarddefinitions). (Accessed December 20, 2009).
16. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. CONSORT Group. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251. (doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000251).