David Michael C, Ware Robert S, Alati Rosa, Dower Jo, Donald Maria
School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston 4006, Queensland, Australia.
School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston 4006, Queensland, Australia.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jun;67(6):715-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.004. Epub 2014 Mar 5.
Strategies such as reminders are frequently used to maximize baseline recruitment and for this reason are collectively termed "usual practice." The objective of this study was to investigate substitution sampling as an alternative recruitment strategy.
Data are from the Living with Diabetes Study, which is a prospective cohort study providing a comprehensive examination of health care utilization. Baseline information was collected for 3,197 of 11,470 eligible individuals between November 2008 and October 2009. Follow-up occurred 12 months after recruitment, with outcome of interest being emergency department attendance. Biases resulting from the two recruitment programs were investigated through the comparison of adjusted logistic regression coefficients and absolute relative biases (ARBs).
Corresponding estimates resulting from both programs were similar except for age (75+ years). This effect was significant (β: -0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.04, -0.13) under substitution sampling, but not under "usual practice" (β: -0.36; 95% CI: -0.78, 0.07). Analysis using the ARB metric reinforced similarity, with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test failing to detect significant difference between programs (median difference: -1.01; 95% CI: -5.88, 2.02).
Substitution sampling deserves consideration as a recruitment option alongside "usual practice," as concerns about additional bias may be unwarranted.
提醒等策略经常被用于使基线招募最大化，因此被统称为“常规做法”。本研究的目的是调查替代抽样作为一种替代招募策略。
数据来自糖尿病生活研究，这是一项前瞻性队列研究，全面检查医疗保健利用情况。在2008年11月至2009年10月期间，从11470名符合条件的个体中收集了3197人的基线信息。招募后12个月进行随访，感兴趣的结果是急诊科就诊情况。通过比较调整后的逻辑回归系数和绝对相对偏差（ARB）来研究两种招募方案导致的偏差。
除年龄（75岁及以上）外，两种方案得出的相应估计值相似。在替代抽样下，这种效应显著（β：-0.59；95%置信区间[CI]：-1.04，-0.13），但在“常规做法”下不显著（β：-0.36；95%CI：-0.78，0.07）。使用ARB指标的分析强化了相似性，威尔科克森符号秩检验未能检测到方案之间的显著差异（中位数差异：-1.01；95%CI：-5.88，2.02）。
替代抽样值得作为一种招募选择与“常规做法”一起考虑，因为对额外偏差的担忧可能是没有根据的。
