Advertisement

Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse

  • Suzanne C. HughesEmail author
  • Carol J. Hogue
  • Melissa A. Clark
  • Jessica E. Graber
  • Elaine D. Eaker
  • Amy H. Herring
  • the National Children’s Study
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Population-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility items on pregnancy screeners although they are critical to participant recruitment. This paper examined the patterns and respondent characteristics of key pregnancy screener items used in a large national study.

Methods

Cross-sectional analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine nonresponse patterns to three questions (currently pregnant, trying to get pregnant and able to get pregnant). The questions were asked of 50,529 women in 17 locations across the US, as part of eligibility screening for the National Children’s Study Vanguard Study household-based recruitment.

Results

Most respondents were willing to provide information about current pregnancy, trying, and able to get pregnant: 99.3% of respondents answered all three questions and 97.4% provided meaningful answers. Nonresponse ranged from 0.3 to 2.5% for individual items. Multivariable logistic regression results identified small but statistically significant differences in nonresponse by respondent age, marital status, race/ethnicity-language, and household-based recruitment group.

Conclusions for Practice

The high levels of response to pregnancy-related items are impressive considering that the eligibility questions were fairly sensitive, were administered at households, and were not part of a respondent-initiated encounter.

Keywords

Item nonresponse Nonresponse Missing data Pregnancy screener Prenatal Children National Children’s Study Recruitment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This manuscript, a ‘primary NCS publication’, was developed by a Writing Team assembled by the National Children’s Study (NCS) Publications Committee for the purpose of timely sharing of centrally collected NCS data. The analysis was conducted as part of the National Children’s Study, supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and funded, through its appropriation, by the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This manuscript was supported in whole or part by NICHD Contract(s) No(s): NICHD HHSN275200503411C/N01-HD-5-3411; NIH-NICHD-HHSN267200700021C; HHSN275201200021C, and HHSN275200800024C. The authors acknowledge Valerie Hsu MS, Xiaoshu Zhu Ph.D., and David Hubble MA of WESTAT for conducting the data analyses for this paper; Christina Chambers MPH, Ph.D. for serving as their NCS publications committee liaison; NCS publications committee members for reviewing the manuscript (Omar Abdulrahman MD; Dana Dabelea MD, Ph.D.; Donald Dudley MD; Mike Varner MD; and Christina Park Ph.D., MHS); and the NCS study teams. The authors are grateful to the thousands of respondents who participated in the pregnancy screening for the NCS. The views expressed in this article are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the National Children’s Study, the National Institutes of Health, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baker, D., Park, C., Sweeney, C., McCormack, L., Durkin, M., Brenner, R., Dabelea, D., & Entwisle, B. (2014). Recruitment of women in the National Children’s Study initial Vanguard Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(11), 1366–1374.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu062.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaisdell, L. L., Zellner, J. A., King, A. A., Faustman, E., Wilhelm, M., Hudak, M. L., & Annett, R. D. (2016). Recruitment using enhanced household approach. Pediatrics, 137(Supplement 4), S219–S230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandra, A., Martinez, G. M., Mosher, W. D., Abma, J. C., & Jones, J. (2005). Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 national survey of family growth. National center for health statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, 23(25), 1–160.Google Scholar
  4. Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., Groves, R. M., & Little, R. J. A. (2002). Survey nonresponse in design, data collection, and analyses. In R. Groves, D. Dillman, J. Eltinge & R. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 3–26). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Dixon, J. (2005). Comparison of item and unit nonresponse in household surveys. Washington DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2008/files/301842.pdf.
  6. Elliott, M. N., Edwards, C., Angeles, J., Hambarsoomians, K., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Patterns of unit and item nonresponse in the CAHPS® hospital survey. Health Services Research, 40(6 Pt 2), 2096–2119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00476.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahrenwald, N. L., Wey, B., Martin, A., & Specker, B. L. (2013). Community outreach and engagement to prepare for household recruitment of National Children’s Study participants in a rural setting. The Journal of Rural Health, 29(1), 61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2012.00418.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Foulkes, M. A., Grady, C., Spong, C. Y., Bates, A., & Clayton, J. A. (2011). Clinical research enrolling pregnant women: A workshop summary. Journal of Women’s Health, 20(10), 1429–1432.  https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.3118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayford, S. R., & Guzzo, K. B. (2010). Age, relationship status, and the planning status of births. Demographic Research, 23(13), 365–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hirschfeld, S., Songco, D., Kramer, B. S., & Guttmacher, A. E. (2011). National Children’s Study: status in 2010. The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 78(1), 119–125.  https://doi.org/10.1002/msj.20227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hussain-Gambles, M., Atkin, K., & Leese, B. (2004). Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials: A review of the literature. Health and Social Care in the Community, 12(5), 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Landrigan, P. J., Trasande, L., Thorpe, L. E., Gwynn, C., Lioy, P. J., D’Alton, M. E., Lipkind, H. S., Swanson, J., Wadhwa, P. D., Clark, E. B., Rauh, V. A., Perera, F. P., & Susser, E. (2006). The National Children’s Study: A 21-year prospective study of 100,000 American children. Pediatrics, 118(5), 2173–2186.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lobdell, D. T., & Dimitropoulos, L. (2004). Final report: National Children’s Study focus groups–follow-up. Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/020: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  14. Montaquila, J. M., Brick, J. M., & Curtin, L. R. (2010). Statistical and practical issues in the design of a national probability sample of births for the Vanguard Study of the National Children’s Study. Statistics in Medicine, 29(13), 1368–1376.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3891.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Mosher, W. D., Jones, J., & Abma, J. C. (2012). Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010. National health statistics reports; no 55. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services. The national survey of family growth 2011–2013 Webdoc: Online codebook documentation. Female respondent file codebook. Sections B and D. Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsradmin/nsfg/variable/613749?studyNumber=9998&vg=7197.
  17. National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Panel to Review the National Children’s Study Research Plan. (2008). The National Children’s Study research plan: A review. Chapter 3, Priority outcome and exposure measures. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20658/.
  18. Owens, L., Johnson, T. P., & O’Rourke, D. (2001). Culture and item nonresponse in health surveys. In M. L. Cynamon & R. A. Kulka (Eds.), Seventh conference on health survey research methods (HHS Publication No. PHS 01-1013, pp. 69–74). Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hsrmc/hsrmc_7th_proceedings_1999.pdf.
  19. Promislow, J. H., Makarushka, C. M., Gorman, J. R., Howards, P. P., Savitz, D. A., & Hartmann, K. E. (2004). Recruitment for a community-based study of early pregnancy: The right from the start study. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 18, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rajakumar, K., Thomas, S. B., Musa, D.,. Almario, D., & Garza, M. A. (2009). Racial differences in parents’ distrust of medicine and research. Archives in Pediatrics and Adolescence, 163(2), 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rässler, S., & Riphahn, R. T. (2006). Survey item nonresponse and its treatment. Allgemeines Statistisches Archive, 90(1), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sapienza, J. N., Corbie-Smith, G., Keim, S., & Fleischman, A. R. (2007). Community engagement in epidemiological research. Ambulatory Pediatrics: The Official Journal of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association, 7(3), 247–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ambp.2007.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Toledano, M. B., Smith, R. B., Brook, J. P., Douglass, M., & Elliott, P. (2015). How to establish and follow up a large prospective cohort study in the 21st century—lessons from UK COSMOS. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0131521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Trasande, L., Andrews, H. F., Goranson, C., Li, W., Barrow, E. C., Vanderbeek, S. B., McCrary, B., Allen, S. B., Gallagher, K. D., Rundle, A., Quinn, J., & Brenner, B. (2011). Early experiences and predictors of recruitment success for the National Children’s Study. Pediatrics, 127(2), 261–268.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2334. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/2/261.long.
  26. Wyatt, S. B., Winters, K., & Watson, C. National Children’s Study. (2005). Strategies for minority recruitment in the National Children’s Study: issues of trust. White Paper. Bethesda, MD: NIH, NICHD. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237611927_Deliverable_Final_White_Paper_Strategies_for_Minority_Recruitment_in_the_National_Children’s_Study_Issues_of_Trust.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzanne C. Hughes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carol J. Hogue
    • 2
  • Melissa A. Clark
    • 3
  • Jessica E. Graber
    • 4
    • 7
  • Elaine D. Eaker
    • 5
    • 8
  • Amy H. Herring
    • 6
    • 9
  • the National Children’s Study
  1. 1.Graduate School of Public HealthSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Rollins School of Public HealthEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.School of Public Health, Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  4. 4.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  5. 5.WESTATRockvilleUSA
  6. 6.Department of BiostatisticsGillings School of Global Public Health and Carolina Population CenterChapel HillUSA
  7. 7.United States Census BureauWashingtonUSA
  8. 8.Eaker Epidemiology Enterprises, LLCWalla WallaUSA
  9. 9.Department of Statistical ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations