Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

Determinants of non- response to a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the EPIC-PANACEA study.

Anne May 1, 2, * Lotte Adema 1 Dora Romaguera 3 Anne-Claire Vergnaud 3 Antonio Agudo 4 Ulf Ekelund 5 Annika Steffen 6, 7 Philippos Orfanos 8 Nadia Slimani 9 Sabina Rinaldi 9 Traci Mouw 3 Sabine Rohrmann 10 Silke Hermann 10 Heiner Boeing 6 Manuela Bergmann 6 Marianne Jakobsen 11 Kim Overvad 12 Nicholas Wareham 5 Carlos Gonzalez 4 Anne Tjonneland 13 Jytte Halkjaer 9 Timothy Key 14 Elizabeth Spencer 14 Veronica Hellstrom 15 Jonas Manjer 16 Bo Hedblad 17 Eiliv Lund 18 Tonje Braaten 18 Françoise Clavel-Chapelon 19 Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault 9 Laudina Rodríguez 20 Maria Sánchez 21 Miren Dorronsoro 22 Aurelio Barricarte 23 Jose Huerta 24 Androniki Naska 8 Antonia Trichopoulou 8 Domenico Palli 25 Valeria Pala 26 Teresa Norat 3 Amalia Mattiello 27 Rosario Tumino 28 Daphne van der A 2 H Bueno-De-Mesquita 2 Elio Riboli 3 Petra Peeters 1
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 [greater than or equal to]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.
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [21 references]  Display  Hide  Download

https://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-00753913
Contributor : Ed. Bmc <>
Submitted on : Monday, November 19, 2012 - 9:10:21 PM
Last modification on : Friday, October 23, 2020 - 4:58:34 PM
Long-term archiving on: : Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 11:45:35 AM

Files

Identifiers

Citation

Anne May, Lotte Adema, Dora Romaguera, Anne-Claire Vergnaud, Antonio Agudo, et al.. Determinants of non- response to a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the EPIC-PANACEA study.. BMC Medical Research Methodology, BioMed Central, 2012, 12 (1), pp.148. ⟨10.1186/1471-2288-12-148⟩. ⟨inserm-00753913⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

804

Files downloads

1435