50 % Response rates: half-empty, or half-full?

Cancer Causes and Control

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 805-808

  Lacey, James V ^a   Savage, Kristen E ^a  

^a CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Biobanking; Cohort; Epidemiology; Methodology; Response rates

Indexed keywords

DNA; MOUTHWASH;

AGE; ARTICLE; BIOBANKING; BLOOD SAMPLING; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; COHORT ANALYSIS; COST; DNA DETERMINATION; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; NONRESPONSE BIAS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SALIVA ANALYSIS; SOCIAL STATUS;

EID: 84964334058     PISSN: 09575243     EISSN: 15737225     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-016-0748-z     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Black Women’s Health Study. http://www.bu.edu/bwhs/. Accessed 17 Mar 2016
2. Galea S, Tracy M (2007) Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol 17(9):643–653. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013
3. Morton LM, Cahill J, Hartge P (2006) Reporting participation in epidemiologic studies: a survey of practice. Am J Epidemiol 163(3):197–203. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj036
4. Campbell PT, Deka A, Briggs P, Cicek M, Farris AB, Gaudet MM, Jacobs EJ, Newton CC, Patel AV, Teras LR, Thibodeau SN, Tillmans L, Gapstur SM (2014) Establishment of the cancer prevention study II nutrition cohort colorectal tissue repository. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23(12):2694–2702. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0541
5. Sinicrope PS, Patten CA, Bonnema SM, Almquist JR, Smith CM, Beebe TJ, Jacobsen SJ, Vachon CM (2009) Healthy women’s motivators and barriers to participation in a breast cancer cohort study: a qualitative study. Ann Epidemiol 19(7):484–493. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.01.002
6. De Vries R, Tomlinson T, Kim H, Krenz C, Ryan K, Lehpamer N, Kim S (2016) The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci Soc Policy 12(3):1–15. doi:10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4
7. Fry CL (2008) A comprehensive evidence-based approach is needed for promoting participation in health research: a commentary on Williams. Soc Sci Med 66(7):1457–1460. Discussion 1461–2. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.12.014
8. Williams B, Entwistle V, Haddow G, Wells M (2008) Promoting research participation: why not advertise altruism? Soc Sci Med 66(7):1451–1456. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.12.013
9. Silva Junior SH, Santos SM, Coeli CM, Carvalho MS (2015) Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Cad Saude Publica 31(11):2259–2274. doi:10.1590/0102-311X00133814
10. Bunin GR, Spector LG, Olshan AF, Robison LL, Roesler M, Grufferman S, Shu XO, Ross JA (2007) Secular trends in response rates for controls selected by random digit dialing in childhood cancer studies: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Am J Epidemiol 166(1):109–116. doi:10.1093/aje/kwm050
11. Bernstein L, Allen M, Anton-Culver H, Deapen D, Horn-Ross PL, Peel D, Pinder R, Reynolds P, Sullivan-Halley J, West D, Wright W, Ziogas A, Ross RK (2002) High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 13(7):625–635