Robinson William T, Risser Jan M H, McGoy Shanell, Becker Adam B, Rehman Hafeez, Jefferson Mary, Griffin Vivian, Wolverton Marcia, Tortu Stephanie
HIV/AIDS Program, Louisana Office of Public Health, 1010 Common St. 11th floor, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
J Urban Health. 2006 Nov;83(6 Suppl):i29-38. doi: 10.1007/s11524-006-9100-3.
Several recent studies have utilized respondent-driven sampling (RDS) methods to survey hidden populations such as commercial sex-workers, men who have sex with men (MSM) and injection drug users (IDU). Few studies, however, have provided a direct comparison between RDS and other more traditional sampling methods such as venue-based, targeted or time/space sampling. The current study sampled injection drug users in three U.S. cities using RDS and targeted sampling (TS) methods and compared their effectiveness in terms of recruitment efficiency, logistics, and sample demographics. Both methods performed satisfactorily. The targeted method required more staff time per-recruited respondent and had a lower proportion of screened respondents who were eligible than RDS, while RDS respondents were offered higher incentives for participation.
最近的几项研究采用了应答驱动抽样（RDS）方法来调查隐蔽人群，如商业性工作者、男男性行为者（MSM）和注射吸毒者（IDU）。然而，很少有研究对RDS与其他更传统的抽样方法，如基于场所的抽样、目标抽样或时间/空间抽样进行直接比较。本研究在美国三个城市采用RDS和目标抽样（TS）方法对注射吸毒者进行抽样，并在招募效率、后勤保障和样本人口统计学方面比较了它们的有效性。两种方法都表现令人满意。目标抽样方法每招募一名受访者需要更多的工作人员时间，且符合条件的被筛查受访者比例低于RDS，而RDS受访者参与的激励更高。
