↓ Skip to main content

Does size really matter? A sensitivity analysis of number of seeds in a respondent-driven sampling study of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in Vancouver, Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does size really matter? A sensitivity analysis of number of seeds in a respondent-driven sampling study of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in Vancouver, Canada
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0258-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan John Lachowsky, Justin Tyler Sorge, Henry Fisher Raymond, Zishan Cui, Paul Sereda, Ashleigh Rich, Eric A. Roth, Robert S. Hogg, David M. Moore

Abstract

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is an increasingly used peer chain-recruitment method to sample "hard-to-reach" populations for whom there are no reliable sampling frames. Implementation success of RDS varies; one potential negative factor being the number of seeds used. We conducted a sensitivity analysis on estimates produced using data from an RDS study of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) aged ≥16 years living in Vancouver, Canada. Participants completed a questionnaire on demographics, sexual behavior and substance use. For analysis, we used increasing seed exclusion criteria, starting with all participants and subsequently removing unproductive seeds, chains of ≤1 recruitment waves, and chains of ≤2 recruitment waves. We calculated estimates for three different outcomes (HIV serostatus, condomless anal intercourse with HIV discordant/unknown status partner, and injecting drugs) using three different RDS weighting procedures: RDS-I, RDS-II, and RDS-SS. We also assessed seed dependence with bottleneck analyses and convergence plots. Statistical differences between RDS estimators were assessed through simulation analysis. Overall, 719 participants were recruited, which included 119 seeds and a maximum of 16 recruitment waves (mean chain length = 1.7). The sample of >0 recruitment waves removed unproductive seeds (n = 50/119, 42.0%), resulting in 69 chains (mean length = 3.0). The sample of >1 recruitment waves removed 125 seeds or recruits (17.4% of overall sample), resulting in 37 chains (mean length = 4.8). The final sample of >2 recruitment waves removed a further 182 seeds or recruits (25.3% of overall sample), resulting in 25 chains (mean length = 6.1). Convergence plots and bottleneck analyses of condomless anal intercourse with HIV discordant/unknown status partner and injecting drugs outcomes were satisfactory. For these two outcomes, regardless of seed exclusion criteria used, the crude proportions fell within 95% confidence intervals of all RDS-weighted estimates. Significant differences between the three RDS estimators were not observed. Within a sample of GBMSM in Vancouver, Canada, this RDS study suggests that when equilibrium and homophily are met, although potentially costly and time consuming, analysis is not negatively affected by large numbers of unproductive or lowly productive seeds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Psychology 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,900,066
of 24,132,754 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,034
of 2,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,186
of 274,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,132,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.