↓ Skip to main content

National weighting of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
National weighting of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0255-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ronaldo Iachan, Carol Pierannunzi, Kristie Healey, Kurt J. Greenlund, Machell Town

Abstract

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a network of health-related telephone surveys--conducted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and participating US territories-that receive technical assistance from CDC. Data users often aggregate BRFSS state samples for national estimates without accounting for state-level sampling, a practice that could introduce bias because the weighted distributions of the state samples do not always adhere to national demographic distributions. This article examines six methods of reweighting, which are then compared with key health indicator estimates from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) based on 2013 data. Compared to the usual stacking approach, all of the six new methods reduce the variance of weights and design effect at the national level, and some also reduce the estimated bias. This article also provides a comparison of the methods based on the variances induced by unequal weighting as well as the bias reduction induced by raking at the national level, and recommends a preferred method. The new method leads to weighted distributions that more accurately reproduce national demographic characteristics. While the empirical results for key estimates were limited to a few health indicators, they also suggest reduction in potential bias and mean squared error. To the extent that survey outcomes are associated with these demographic characteristics, matching the national distributions will reduce bias in estimates of these outcomes at the national level.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 14 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,986,040
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,038
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,357
of 306,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.