%0 Journal Article
%A May, Anne M
%A Adema, Lotte E
%A Romaguera, Dora
%A Vergnaud, Anne-Claire
%A Agudo, Antonio
%A Ekelund, Ulf
%A Steffen, Annika
%A Orfanos, Philippos
%A Slimani, Nadia
%A Rinaldi, Sabina
%A Mouw, Traci
%A Rohrmann, Sabine
%A Hermann, Silke
%A Boeing, Heiner
%A Bergmann, Manuela M
%A Jakobsen, Marianne Uhre
%A Overvad, Kim
%A Wareham, Nicholas J
%A Gonzalez, Carlos
%A Tjonneland, Anne
%A Halkjaer, Jytte
%A Key, Timothy J
%A Spencer, Elizabeth A
%A Hellstrom, Veronica
%A Manjer, Jonas
%A Hedblad, Bo
%A Lund, Eiliv
%A Braaten, Tonje
%A Clavel-Chapelon, Françoise
%A Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine
%A Rodríguez, Laudina
%A Sanchez-Perez, Maria-Jose
%A Dorronsoro, Miren
%A Barricarte, Aurelio
%A Huerta, Jose Maria
%A Naska, Androniki
%A Trichopoulou, Antonia
%A Palli, Domenico
%A Pala, Valeria
%A Norat, Teresa
%A Mattiello, Amalia
%A Tumino, Rosario
%A van der A, Daphne
%A Bueno-de-Mesquita, H Bas
%A Riboli, Elio
%A Peeters, Petra H M
%T Determinants of non- response to a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the EPIC-PANACEA study.
%D 2012
%U http://hdl.handle.net/10668/777
%X BACKGROUNDThis 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.METHODSOver 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.RESULTSOverall 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 ≥30 kg/m2, 1.26 (1.23; 1.29)).CONCLUSIONSCohort 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.
%K Non-response
%K Non-participation
%K Lost-to-follow-up
%K Follow-up
%K Health survey
%K Nonresponse bias
%K Selection bias
%K Population
%K cohort
%K Attrition
%K representativeness
%K Participation
%K Predictors
%K Encuestas epidemiológicas
%K Estilo de Vida
%~