Assessing Racial Nonresponse in a Health Survey
Author Information
Author(s): Jessica T DeFrank, J. Michael Bowling, Barbara K Rimer, Jennifer M Gierisch, Celette Sugg Skinner
Primary Institution: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Hypothesis
Does differential nonresponse by race occur in the PRISM study when race data is incomplete?
Conclusion
The study found slight differential nonresponse by race, indicating that black women were less likely to be reached for participation compared to white women.
Supporting Evidence
- The E-Tech method had moderate sensitivity (48%) but high specificity (97%) in estimating race.
- Black women comprised only 10.7% of study participants, significantly lower than the expected 23%.
- Interviewer estimates had high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (95%) for identifying race.
Takeaway
The study looked at how many black and white women participated in a health survey and found that fewer black women were involved. This means researchers need to find better ways to include everyone.
Methodology
The study used two methods to estimate race: E-Tech, which analyzed names and zip codes, and interviews with a subsample of study refusals.
Potential Biases
There is a risk of nonresponse bias due to the underrepresentation of black women in the study.
Limitations
The E-Tech method misclassified many black participants as white, and the sample size for validating the interviewer method was small.
Participant Demographics
Participants were primarily insured women aged 40 to 75, with 10.7% identifying as black.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Confidence Interval
95% CI, 0.48–0.58
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website