Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 26, 2026.

Evaluating selection bias in a population-based cohort study with low baseline participation: the LIFE-Adult-Study

Cornelia Enzenbach, Barbara Wicklein, Kerstin Wirkner and 1 more

BMC Medical Research Methodology · 2019 · CC BY

doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0779-8

Abstract

Background. Participation in epidemiologic studies is steadily declining, which may result in selection bias. It is therefore an ongoing challenge to clarify the determinants of participation to judge possible selection effects and to derive measures to minimise that bias. We evaluated the potential for selection bias in a recent population-based cohort study with low baseline participation and investigated reasons for nonparticipation.

Methods. LIFE-Adult is a cohort study in the general population of the city of Leipzig (Germany) designed to gain insights into the distribution and development of civilisation diseases. Nine thousand one hundred forty-five participants aged 40–79 years were randomly sampled in 2011–2014. We compared LIFE-Adult participants with both the Leipzig population and nonparticipants using official statistics and short questionnaire data. We applied descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis to evaluate the determinants of study participation.

Results. Thirty-one percent of the invited persons participated in the LIFE-Adult baseline examination. Study participants were less often elderly women and more often married, highly educated, employed, and current nonsmokers compared to both the Leipzig population and nonparticipants. They further reported better health than nonparticipants. The observed differences were considerable in education and health variables. They were generally stronger in men than in women. For example, in male study participants aged 50–69, the frequency of high education was 1.5 times that of the general population, and the frequency of myocardial infarction was half that of nonparticipants. Lack of time and interest, as well as health problems were the main reasons for nonparticipation.

Conclusions. Our investigation suggests that the low baseline participation in LIFE-Adult is associated with the typical selection of study participants with higher social status and healthier lifestyle, and additionally less disease. Notably, education and health status seem to be crucial selection factors. Consequently, frequencies of major health conditions in the general population will likely be underestimated. A differential selection related to sex might also distort effect estimates. The extent of the assessment, the interest in the research topic, and health problems of potential participants should in future be considered in LIFE-Adult and in similar studies to raise participation and to minimise selection bias.

Electronic supplementary material. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0779-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References 40

  1. 1.

    Morton LM, Cahill J, Hartge P. Reporting participation in epidemiologic studies: a survey of practice. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:197-203.

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/kwj036

  2. 2.

    Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Validity in epidemiologic studies. Modern epidemiology. 2008;128-147.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:W-163–W-194.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1

  4. 4.

    Stang A. Nonresponse research – an underdeveloped field in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18:929-931.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1025877501423

  5. 5.

    Nohr EA, Liew Z. How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:407-416.

    Not in our library10.1111/aogs.13319

  6. 6.

    Shahar E, Folsom AR, Jackson R. The effect of nonresponse on prevalence estimates for a referent population: insights from a population-based cohort study. Ann Epidemiol. 1996;6:498-506.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1047-2797(96)00104-4

  7. 7.

    Van Loon AJM, Tijhuis M, Picavet HSJ, Surtees PG, Ormel J. Survey non-response in the Netherlands: effects on prevalence estimates and associations. Ann Epidemiol. 2003;13:105-110.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1047-2797(02)00257-0

  8. 8.

    Stang A, Moebus S, Dragano N, Beck EM, Möhlenkamp S, Schmermund A, et al. Baseline recruitment and analyses of nonresponse of the Heinz Nixdorf recall study: identifiability of phone numbers as the major determinant of response. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20:489-496.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10654-005-5529-z

  9. 9.

    Tolonen H, Dobson A, Kulathinal S. Effect on trend estimates of the difference between survey respondents and non-respondents: results from 27 populations in the WHO MONICA project. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20:887-898.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10654-005-2672-5

  10. 10.

    Holle R, Hochadel M, Reitmeir P, Meisinger C, Wichmann HE. Prolonged recruitment efforts in health surveys: effects on response, costs, and potential bias. Epidemiology. 2006;17:639-643.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.ede.0000239731.86975.7f

  11. 11.

    Veenstra MY, Friesema IHM, Zwietering PJ, Garretsen HFL, Knottnerus JA, Lemmens PHHM. Lower prevalence of heart disease but higher mortality risk during follow-up was found among nonrespondents to a cohort study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:412-420.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.019

  12. 12.

    Lorant V, Demarest S, Miermans PJ, Van Oyen H. Survey error in measuring socio-economic risk factors of health status: a comparison of a survey and a census. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:1292-1299.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dym191

  13. 13.

    Christensen AI, Ekholm O, Kristensen PL, Larsen FB, Vinding AL, Glümer C, Juel K. The effect of multiple reminders on response patterns in a Danish health survey. Eur J of Public Health. 2014;25:156-161.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurpub/cku057

  14. 14.
    Representativeness of the LifeLines Cohort Study · 2015
    No notice
  15. 15.
    Comparison of Sociodemographic and Health-Related Characteristics of UK Biobank Participants With Those of the General Population · 2017
    No notice
  16. 16.
    The LIFE-Adult-Study: objectives and design of a population-based cohort study with 10,000 deeply phenotyped adults in Germany · 2015
    No notice
  17. 17.

    Hartge P. Raising response rates: getting to yes. Epidemiology. 1999;10:105-107.

    Not in our library10.1097/00001648-199903000-00003

  18. 18.

    Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder, editors. Zensus 2011 – Methoden und Verfahren. Wiesbaden 2015. https://www.zensus2011.de/DE/Zensus2011/Methode/Methode_node.html Accessed 18 July 2018.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Statistisches Bundesamt. Qualitätsbericht – Mikrozensus 2013. Wiesbaden 2014. https://www.destatis.de/GPStatistik/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/DEHeft_derivate_00015754/Mikrozensus2013.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2018.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    Slattery ML, Edwards SL, Caan BJ, Kerber RA, Potter JD. Response rates among control subjects in case-control studies. Ann Epidemiol. 1995;5:245-249.

    Not in our library10.1016/1047-2797(94)00113-8

  21. 21.

    Stang A, Ahrens W, Jöckel KH. Control response proportions in population-based case-control studies in Germany. Epidemiology. 1999;10:181-183.

    Not in our library10.1097/00001648-199903000-00017

  22. 22.

    Kamtsiuris P, Lange M, Hoffmann R, Schaffrath Rosario A, Dahm S, Kuhnert R, Kurth BM. The first wave of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS 1): sampling design, response, weighting, and representativeness. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 2013;56:620-630.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00103-012-1650-9

  23. 23.

    Gaertner B, Seitz I, Fuchs J, Busch MA, Holzhausen M, Martus P, Scheidt-Nave C. Baseline participation in a health examination survey of the population 65 years and older: who is missed and why? BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:21.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12877-016-0185-6

  24. 24.

    Hoffmann W, Terschüren C, Holle R, Kamtsiuris P, Bergmann M, Kroke A, et al. The problem of response in epidemiological studies in Germany (part II). Gesundheitswesen. 2004;66:482-491.

    Not in our library10.1055/s-2004-813094

  25. 25.

    Haring R, Alte D, Völzke H, Sauer S, Wallaschofski H, John U, Schmidt CO. Extended recruitment efforts minimize attrition but not necessarily bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:252-260.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.010

  26. 26.

    Knudsen AK, Hotopf M, Skogen JC, Overland S, Mykletun A. The health status of nonparticipants in a population-based health study: the Hordaland health study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1306-1314.

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/kwq257

  27. 27.

    Nummela O, Sulander T, Helakorpi S, Haapola I, Uutela A, Heinonen H, et al. Register-based data indicated nonparticipation bias in a health study among aging people. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1418-1425.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.003

  28. 28.
    The HUNT study: participation is associated with survival and depends on socioeconomic status, diseases and symptoms · 2012
    No notice
  29. 29.

    Latza U, Stang A, Bergmann M, Kroke A, Sauer S, Holle R, et al. The problem of response in epidemiological studies in Germany (part I). Gesundheitswesen. 2004;66:326-336.

    Not in our library10.1055/s-2004-813093

  30. 30.

    Hartge P, Cahill J, Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Field methods in epidemiology. Modern epidemiology. 2008;492-510.

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17:643-653.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013

  32. 32.

    Korkeila K, Suominen S, Ahvenainen J, Ojanlatva A, Rautava P, Helenius H, Koskenvuo M. Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;17:991-999.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1020016922473

  33. 33.

    Jackson R, Chambless LE, Yang K, Byrne T, Watson R, Folsom A, Shahar E, Kalsbeek W. Differences between respondents and nonrespondents in a multicenter community-based study vary by gender and ethnicity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1441-1446.

    Not in our library10.1016/0895-4356(95)00047-x

  34. 34.

    Fejer R, Hartvigsen J, Kyvik KO, Jordan A, Christensen HW, Hoilund-Carlsen PF. The Funen neck and chest pain study: analyzing non-response bias by using national vital statistic data. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21:171-180.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10654-006-0006-x

  35. 35.

    Oksuzyan A, Petersen I, Storving H, Bingley P, Vaupel JW, Christensen K. The male-female health-survival paradox: a survey and register study of the impact of sex-specific selection and information bias. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19:504-511.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.03.014

  36. 36.

    Rothman KJ, Gallacher JEJ, Hatch EE. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1012-1014.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dys223

  37. 37.

    Elwood JM. Commentary: on representativeness. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1014-1015.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyt101

  38. 38.

    Nohr EA, Olsen J. Commentary: epidemiologists have debated representativeness for more than 40 years – has the time come to move on? Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1016-1017.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyt102

  39. 39.

    Richiardi L, Pizzi C, Pearce N. Commentary: representativeness is usually not necessary and often should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1018-1022.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyt103

  40. 40.

    Batty GD, Gale CR. Impact of resurvey non-response on the associations between baseline risk factors and cardiovascular disease mortality: prospective cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63:952-955.

    Not in our library10.1136/jech.2008.086892

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.