Back to Search Start Over

Determinants of non- response to a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the EPIC-PANACEA study

Authors :
May Anne M
Adema Lotte E
Romaguera Dora
Vergnaud Anne-Claire
Agudo Antonio
Ekelund Ulf
Steffen Annika
Orfanos Philippos
Slimani Nadia
Rinaldi Sabina
Mouw Traci
Rohrmann Sabine
Hermann Silke
Boeing Heiner
Bergmann Manuela M
Jakobsen Marianne
Overvad Kim
Wareham Nicholas J
Gonzalez Carlos
Tjonneland Anne
Halkjaer Jytte
Key Timothy J
Spencer Elizabeth A
Hellstrom Veronica
Manjer Jonas
Hedblad Bo
Lund Eiliv
Braaten Tonje
Clavel-Chapelon Françoise
Boutron-Ruault Marie-Christine
Rodríguez Laudina
Sánchez Maria J
Dorronsoro Miren
Barricarte Aurelio
Huerta Jose
Naska Androniki
Trichopoulou Antonia
Palli Domenico
Pala Valeria
Norat Teresa
Mattiello Amalia
Tumino Rosario
van der A Daphne
Bueno-de-Mesquita H
Riboli Elio
Peeters Petra HM
Source :
BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol 12, Iss 1, p 148 (2012)
Publication Year :
2012
Publisher :
BMC, 2012.

Abstract

Abstract Background This paper discusses whether baseline demographic, socio-economic, health variables, length of follow-up and method of contacting the participants predict non-response to the invitation for a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the European multi-center EPIC-PANACEA study. Methods Over 500.000 participants from several centers in ten European countries recruited between 1992 and 2000 were contacted 2–11 years later to update data on lifestyle and body weight. Length of follow-up as well as the method of approaching differed between the collaborating study centers. Non-responders were compared with responders using multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results Overall response for the second assessment was high (81.6%). Compared to postal surveys, centers where the participants completed the questionnaire by phone attained a higher response. Response was also high in centers with a short follow-up period. Non-response was higher in participants who were male (odds ratio 1.09 (confidence interval 1.07; 1.11), aged under 40 years (1.96 (1.90; 2.02), living alone (1.40 (1.37; 1.43), less educated (1.35 (1.12; 1.19), of poorer health (1.33 (1.27; 1.39), reporting an unhealthy lifestyle and who had either a low (25, 1.08 (1.06; 1.10); especially ≥30 kg/m2, 1.26 (1.23; 1.29)). Conclusions Cohort studies may enhance cohort maintenance by paying particular attention to the subgroups that are most unlikely to respond and by an active recruitment strategy using telephone interviews.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14712288
Volume :
12
Issue :
1
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.726d935f58dc4e57ac943473681d750d
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-148