Most RDS questionnaires ask a variety of questions about degree,

Most RDS questionnaires ask a variety of questions about degree, such as how many PWIDs they know by name and have seen in the last X days, how many PWIDs have they injected with in the last Y weeks and how many of these were new partners or regular partners. A recent study asking multiple questions about degree determined that the first of these obtained the most accurate answers, though mis-reporting was common (Wejnert, 2009). However, it may be possible to alter the questions to gain a more accurate understanding of an individual’s risk (Rudolph et al., 2013), or to use some combination of answers to determine an alternative weighting RNA Synthesis inhibitor for use with the Volz–Heckathorn estimator (Lu,

2013). Alternatively, self completion of the contact portion of the questionnaire may improve accuracy of answers (Schroder et al., 2003). Our simulations show that it is most crucial to obtain accurate reports of degree for low-degree individuals. If questioned in detail, this group may be more likely to remember contacts more accurately and may better be able to answer questions about contact numbers, times and type of contact than individuals with dozens of contacts. Not surprisingly, our simulations indicated that the variation in results decreases

if the sample size is increased (see Figs. S5 Epigenetic pathway inhibitors and S6, also shown in Goel and Salganik, 2009 and Mills et al., 2012). Additionally, taking multiple surveys of the same population can improve the estimate. However, multiple surveys are generally not practical. If instead a larger survey were taken, the error in estimates could be reduced by using a bootstrapping method, as described by Salganik (2006). Researchers would estimate μˆ many times, each time

using a subset of the (larger) RDS sample. The resulting distribution of estimates would be used to construct confidence intervals, for example, and ultimately p-values for any estimated change in prevalence, incidence or other estimate. We have shown that inaccuracy in degree can reduce the accuracy of prevalence estimates ADAMTS5 from RDS surveys and decrease the ability to identify accurately the magnitude of prevalence trends in the underlying population. We recognise that RDS is an extremely useful method to quickly access hidden populations such as PWIDs, but we urge users to consider results cautiously and to make every effort to estimate degrees carefully, particularly those of low-degree individuals, and particularly when comparing surveys. H.L.M. would like to acknowledge funding from Wellcome Trust University Award 093488/Z/10/Z. S.J. is grateful for financial support from the European Commission under the Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship Programme PIEF-GA-2010-276454. M.H. would like to acknowledge funding from NIQUAD MRC grant G1000021 and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)’s School for Public Health Research (SPHR). N.S.J. acknowledges support from EPSRC grant EP/I005765/1. C.C.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>