Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:17:56.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Non-participation bias in unlinked anonymous HIV-prevalence surveys in England and Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 1999

T. DUONG
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health, London WC1 1EH
A. E. ADES
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health, London WC1 1EH
P. ROGERS
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory Service AIDS & STD Centre at the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
A. NICOLL
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory Service AIDS & STD Centre at the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The objective was to assess the potential bias in unlinked anonymous HIV-seroprevalence surveys from objections to specimens being included. Objection rates in seroprevalence surveys were examined. Statistically large clusters of objections were considered to be the result of health care worker behaviour, and were disregarded. Underlying objection rates were estimated from remaining data and compared to seroprevalence. Overall objection rates approached or exceeded seroprevalence in many participating centres. However, underlying objection rates declined with time while prevalences were generally unchanging. Also, underlying rates correlated poorly with observed seroprevalences. Findings were therefore consistent with processes producing the clusters of objections and underlying objection rates independently of serostatus of individuals. Although national seroprevalence estimates produced by the surveys are reasonably free from objection bias, regional seroprevalence estimates outside London remain vulnerable to bias as a result of some centres returning data whose quality cannot be guaranteed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1999 Cambridge University Press