Challenges and benefits of integrating diverse sampling strategies in the observation of cardiovascular risk factors (ORISCAV-LUX 2) study.
Epidemiology
Follow-up studies, population health
Population-based study
Sample representativeness
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 02 2019
04 02 2019
Historique:
received:
18
06
2018
accepted:
28
01
2019
entrez:
6
2
2019
pubmed:
6
2
2019
medline:
25
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is challenging to manage data collection as planned and creation of opportunities to adapt during the course of enrolment may be needed. This paper aims to summarize the different sampling strategies adopted in the second wave of Observation of Cardiovascular Risk Factors (ORISCAV-LUX, 2016-17), with a focus on population coverage and sample representativeness. Data from the first nationwide cross-sectional, population-based ORISCAV-LUX survey, 2007-08 and from the newly complementary sample recruited via different pathways, nine years later were analysed. First, we compare the socio-demographic characteristics and health profiles between baseline participants and non-participants to the second wave. Then, we describe the distribution of subjects across different strategy-specific samples and performed a comparison of the overall ORISCAV-LUX2 sample to the national population according to stratification criteria. For the baseline sample (1209 subjects), the participants (660) were younger than the non-participants (549), with a significant difference in average ages (44 vs 45.8 years; P = 0.019). There was a significant difference in terms of education level (P < 0.0001), 218 (33%) participants having university qualification vs. 95 (18%) non-participants. The participants seemed having better health perception (p < 0.0001); 455 (70.3%) self-reported good or very good health perception compared to 312 (58.2%) non-participants. The prevalence of obesity (P < 0.0001), hypertension (P < 0.0001), diabetes (P = 0.007), and mean values of related biomarkers were significantly higher among the non-participants. The overall sample (1558 participants) was mainly composed of randomly selected subjects, including 660 from the baseline sample and 455 from other health examination survey sample and 269 from civil registry sample (constituting in total 88.8%), against only 174 volunteers (11.2%), with significantly different characteristics and health status. The ORISCAV-LUX2 sample was representative of national population for geographical district, but not for sex and age; the younger (25-34 years) and older (65-79 years) being underrepresented, whereas middle-aged adults being over-represented, with significant sex-specific difference (p < 0.0001). This study represents a careful first-stage analysis of the ORISCAV-LUX2 sample, based on available information on participants and non-participants. The ORISCAV-LUX datasets represents a relevant tool for epidemiological research and a basis for health monitoring and evidence-based prevention of cardiometabolic risk in Luxembourg.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
It is challenging to manage data collection as planned and creation of opportunities to adapt during the course of enrolment may be needed. This paper aims to summarize the different sampling strategies adopted in the second wave of Observation of Cardiovascular Risk Factors (ORISCAV-LUX, 2016-17), with a focus on population coverage and sample representativeness.
METHODS
Data from the first nationwide cross-sectional, population-based ORISCAV-LUX survey, 2007-08 and from the newly complementary sample recruited via different pathways, nine years later were analysed. First, we compare the socio-demographic characteristics and health profiles between baseline participants and non-participants to the second wave. Then, we describe the distribution of subjects across different strategy-specific samples and performed a comparison of the overall ORISCAV-LUX2 sample to the national population according to stratification criteria.
RESULTS
For the baseline sample (1209 subjects), the participants (660) were younger than the non-participants (549), with a significant difference in average ages (44 vs 45.8 years; P = 0.019). There was a significant difference in terms of education level (P < 0.0001), 218 (33%) participants having university qualification vs. 95 (18%) non-participants. The participants seemed having better health perception (p < 0.0001); 455 (70.3%) self-reported good or very good health perception compared to 312 (58.2%) non-participants. The prevalence of obesity (P < 0.0001), hypertension (P < 0.0001), diabetes (P = 0.007), and mean values of related biomarkers were significantly higher among the non-participants. The overall sample (1558 participants) was mainly composed of randomly selected subjects, including 660 from the baseline sample and 455 from other health examination survey sample and 269 from civil registry sample (constituting in total 88.8%), against only 174 volunteers (11.2%), with significantly different characteristics and health status. The ORISCAV-LUX2 sample was representative of national population for geographical district, but not for sex and age; the younger (25-34 years) and older (65-79 years) being underrepresented, whereas middle-aged adults being over-represented, with significant sex-specific difference (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
This study represents a careful first-stage analysis of the ORISCAV-LUX2 sample, based on available information on participants and non-participants. The ORISCAV-LUX datasets represents a relevant tool for epidemiological research and a basis for health monitoring and evidence-based prevention of cardiometabolic risk in Luxembourg.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30717671
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0669-0
pii: 10.1186/s12874-019-0669-0
pmc: PMC6360765
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27Références
Prague Med Rep. 2008;109(4):268-74
pubmed: 19537677
Am J Public Health. 1999 Aug;89(8):1228-31
pubmed: 10432911
BMC Public Health. 2010 Aug 10;10:468
pubmed: 20698957
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Sep 07;10:80
pubmed: 20819238
Lancet. 2014 Mar 15;383(9921):999-1008
pubmed: 24084292
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2001 Dec;10(6):489-99
pubmed: 11916347
Age Ageing. 1998 Jan;27(1):35-40
pubmed: 9504364
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Oct;50(10):1123-8
pubmed: 9368520
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992 Aug;46(4):455-9
pubmed: 1431726
J Am Stat Assoc. 1946 Dec;41(236):517-29
pubmed: 20279350
Dis Colon Rectum. 1996 Jun;39(6):681-5
pubmed: 8646957
Psychiatry Res. 1989 May;28(2):193-213
pubmed: 2748771
Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;34(2):251-6
pubmed: 15576467
Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Jan 1;143(1):92-100
pubmed: 8533752
Scand J Prim Health Care. 1998 Sep;16(3):171-6
pubmed: 9800231
J Public Health Med. 1997 Jun;19(2):203-7
pubmed: 9243437
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Jul;40(7):812
pubmed: 6860082
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Aug 15;154(4):373-84
pubmed: 11495861
BMC Public Health. 2012 Sep 01;12:730
pubmed: 22938722
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993 Apr;21(2):108-13
pubmed: 8485969
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991 Sep;45(3):247-50
pubmed: 1836811
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Jul;50 Suppl 2:S4-8
pubmed: 8841779
Scand J Soc Med. 1995 Jun;23(2):129-36
pubmed: 7676219
J Public Health Dent. 2000 Spring;60(2):72-81
pubmed: 10929564