| Title: | Determinants of non- response to a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the EPIC-PANACEA study |
| Authors: | May, Anne M Adema, Lotte E Romaguera, Dora Vergnaud, Anne-Claire Agudo, Antonio Ekelund, Ulf Steffen, Annika Orfanos, Philippos Slimani, Nadia Rinaldi, Sabina Mouw, Traci Rohrmann, Sabine Hermann, Silke Boeing, Heiner Bergmann, Manuela M Jakobsen, Marianne U Overvad, Kim Wareham, Nicholas J Gonzalez, Carlos Tjonneland, Anne Halkjaer, Jytte Key, Timothy J Spencer, Elizabeth A Hellstrom, Veronica Manjer, Jonas Hedblad, Bo Lund, Eiliv Braaten, Tonje Clavel-Chapelon, Françoise Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine Rodríguez, Laudina Sánchez, Maria J Dorronsoro, Miren Barricarte, Aurelio Huerta, Jose M Naska, Androniki Trichopoulou, Antonia Palli, Domenico Pala, Valeria Norat, Teresa Mattiello, Amalia Tumino, Rosario van der A, Daphne Bueno-de-Mesquita, H B Riboli, Elio Peeters, Petra H M |
| Issue Date: | 24-Sep-2012 |
| Abstract: | Abstract Background This paper discusses whether baseline demographic, socio-economic, health variables, length of follow-up and method of contacting the participants predict non-response to the invitation for a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the European multi-center EPIC-PANACEA study. Methods Over 500.000 participants from several centers in ten European countries recruited between 1992 and 2000 were contacted 2–11 years later to update data on lifestyle and body weight. Length of follow-up as well as the method of approaching differed between the collaborating study centers. Non-responders were compared with responders using multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results Overall response for the second assessment was high (81.6%). Compared to postal surveys, centers where the participants completed the questionnaire by phone attained a higher response. Response was also high in centers with a short follow-up period. Non-response was higher in participants who were male (odds ratio 1.09 (confidence interval 1.07; 1.11), aged under 40 years (1.96 (1.90; 2.02), living alone (1.40 (1.37; 1.43), less educated (1.35 (1.12; 1.19), of poorer health (1.33 (1.27; 1.39), reporting an unhealthy lifestyle and who had either a low (<18.5 kg/m2, 1.16 (1.09; 1.23)) or a high BMI (>25, 1.08 (1.06; 1.10); especially ≥30 kg/m2, 1.26 (1.23; 1.29)). Conclusions Cohort studies may enhance cohort maintenance by paying particular attention to the subgroups that are most unlikely to respond and by an active recruitment strategy using telephone interviews. |
| URI: | http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/243987 |
| Other Identifiers: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-148 |
| Appears in Collections: | BioMed Storage Collection |
Files in This Item:
|
| Additional resources for this item |
|---|
| retrieve citation metadata in EndNote format |
This item has been accessed 329 times.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

