Title |
Baseline participation in a health examination survey of the population 65 years and older: who is missed and why?
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0185-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Beate Gaertner, Ina Seitz, Judith Fuchs, Markus A. Busch, Martin Holzhausen, Peter Martus, Christa Scheidt-Nave |
Abstract |
Public health monitoring depends on valid health and disability estimates in the population 65+ years. This is hampered by high non-participation rates in this age group. There is limited insight into size and direction of potential baseline selection bias. We analyzed baseline non-participation in a register-based random sample of 1481 inner-city residents 65+ years, invited to a health examination survey according to demographics available for the entire sample, self-report information as available and reasons for non-participation. One year after recruitment, non-responders were revisited to assess their reasons. Five groups defined by participation status were differentiated: participants (N = 299), persons who had died or moved (N = 173), those who declined participation, but answered a short questionnaire (N = 384), those who declined participation and the short questionnaire (N = 324), and non-responders (N = 301). The results confirm substantial baseline selection bias with significant underrepresentation of persons 85+ years, persons in residential care or from disadvantaged neighborhoods, with lower education, foreign citizenship, or lower health-related quality of life. Finally, reasons for non-participation could be identified for 78 % of all non-participants, including 183 non-responders. A diversity in health problems and barriers to participation exists among non-participants. Innovative study designs are needed for public health monitoring in aging populations. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | 29% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
Japan | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 43 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 10 | 21% |
Researcher | 8 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
Other | 5 | 11% |
Unknown | 11 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 28% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
Other | 7 | 15% |
Unknown | 15 | 32% |