Platt Lucy, Wall Martin, Rhodes Tim, Judd Ali, Hickman Matthew, Johnston Lisa G, Renton Adrian, Bobrova Natalia, Sarang Anya
Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
J Urban Health. 2006 Nov;83(6 Suppl):i39-53. doi: 10.1007/s11524-006-9101-2.
Evidence suggests rapid diffusion of injecting drug use and associated outbreaks of HIV among injecting drug users (IDUs) in the Russian Federation and Eastern Europe. There remains a need for research among non-treatment and community-recruited samples of IDUs to better estimate the dynamics of HIV transmission and to improve treatment and health services access. We compare two sampling methodologies "respondent-driven sampling" (RDS) and chain referral sampling using "indigenous field workers" (IFS) to investigate the relative effectiveness of RDS to reach more marginal and hard-to-reach groups and perhaps to include those with the riskiest behaviour around HIV transmission. We evaluate the relative efficiency of RDS to recruit a lower cost sample in comparison to IFS. We also provide a theoretical comparison of the two approaches. We draw upon nine community-recruited surveys of IDUs undertaken in the Russian Federation and Estonia between 2001 and 2005 that used either IFS or RDS. Sampling effects on the demographic composition and injecting risk behaviours of the samples generated are compared using multivariate analysis. Our findings suggest that RDS does not appear to recruit more marginalised sections of the IDU community nor those engaging in riskier injecting behaviours in comparison with IFS. RDS appears to have practical advantages over IFS in the implementation of fieldwork in terms of greater recruitment efficiency and safety of field workers, but at a greater cost. Further research is needed to assess how the practicalities of implementing RDS in the field compromises the requirements mandated by the theoretical guidelines of RDS for adjusting the sample estimates to obtain estimates of the wider IDU population.
有证据表明,注射吸毒现象在俄罗斯联邦和东欧的注射吸毒者中迅速蔓延,且与艾滋病病毒的相关疫情爆发。仍有必要对非治疗机构招募和社区招募的注射吸毒者样本进行研究,以更好地估计艾滋病病毒传播动态,并改善治疗和医疗服务的可及性。我们比较了两种抽样方法,即“应答驱动抽样”(RDS)和使用“本地现场工作人员”(IFS)的链式推荐抽样,以调查RDS在覆盖更多边缘和难以接触群体方面的相对有效性,或许还能纳入那些在艾滋病病毒传播方面行为风险最高的人群。我们评估了RDS与IFS相比在招募低成本样本方面的相对效率。我们还对这两种方法进行了理论比较。我们借鉴了2001年至2005年期间在俄罗斯联邦和爱沙尼亚对注射吸毒者进行的九次社区招募调查,这些调查使用了IFS或RDS。使用多变量分析比较抽样对所产生样本的人口构成和注射风险行为的影响。我们的研究结果表明,与IFS相比,RDS似乎并未招募到注射吸毒者社区中更边缘化的群体,也没有招募到那些从事风险更高注射行为的群体。在实地工作实施方面,RDS相对于IFS似乎具有实际优势,即招募效率更高且现场工作人员更安全,但成本更高。需要进一步研究,以评估在实地实施RDS的实际情况如何影响RDS理论指南所要求的调整样本估计以获得更广泛注射吸毒者人群估计值的要求。