Assessment of Bias in Estimates of Sexual Network Degree using Prospective Cohort Data.
Assessment of Bias in Estimates of Sexual Network Degree using Prospective Cohort Data.
复制标题
使用前瞻性队列数据评估性网络程度估计的偏差。
DOI：
10.1097/ede.0000000000001151
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jenness,SamuelM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Uong,Stephen;Rosenberg,EliS;Goodreau,StevenM;Luisi,Nicole;Sullivan,Patrick;Jenness,SamuelM
背景：性网络程度是对持续伴侣关系的计数，在人类免疫缺陷病毒和其他性传播感染的传播动力学中发挥着关键作用。研究人员经常使用调查当天自我报告的横断面数据来量化程度，这可能会因为对未来性行为的不确定性而导致偏差。方法：采用前瞻性队列研究对男男性行为(MSM)进行横断面程度测量的偏差评估。在基准线上，我们询问男性最近的性关系是否正在进行。我们在后续行动中确认了这些伙伴关系在基线上的真实、持续的状况。通过Logistic回归，我们估计了基线测量准确性的伙伴关系水平预测因子。结果：在伙伴关系类型中，持续状态基线测量的准确率为70%，负面预测值(91%)高于正面预测值(39%)。伙伴关系排他性和种族配对与更高的准确性相关。基准度普遍高估了确认度。偏倚，即与基线预测的持续伙伴数量不同，总体−为0.28，对于有基线的任何持续伙伴关系的男男性行为者，范围从−1.91到−0.41。与相同基线程度的MSM相比，黑人MSM的偏倚水平高于白人MSM，年轻MSM的偏倚水平高于老年MSM。结论：研究可能高估了横断面量化MSM的偏倚程度。调整和结构化敏感性分析可能会导致对人类免疫缺陷病毒或性传播感染预防干预措施的研究存在偏见。
Background:Sexual network degree, a count of ongoing partnerships, plays a critical role in the transmission dynamics of human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections. Researchers often quantify degree using self-reported cross-sectional data on the day of survey, which may result in bias because of uncertainty about future sexual activity.Methods:We evaluated the bias of a cross-sectional degree measure with a prospective cohort study of men who have sex with men (MSM). At baseline, we asked men about whether recent sexual partnerships were ongoing. We confirmed the true, ongoing status of those partnerships at baseline at follow-up. With logistic regression, we estimated the partnership-level predictors of baseline measure accuracy. With Poisson regression, we estimated the longitudinally confirmed degree as a function of baseline predicted degree.Results:Across partnership types, the baseline ongoing status measure was 70% accurate, with higher negative predictive value (91%) than positive predictive value (39%). Partnership exclusivity and racial pairing were associated with higher accuracy. Baseline degree generally overestimated confirmed degree. Bias, or number of ongoing partners different than predicted at baseline, was− 0.28 overall, ranging from− 1.91 to− 0.41 for MSM with any ongoing partnerships at baseline. Comparing MSM of the same baseline degree, the level of bias was stronger for black compared with white MSM, and for younger compared with older MSM.Conclusions:Research studies may overestimate degree when it is quantified cross-sectionally. Adjustment and structured sensitivity analyses may account for bias in studies of human immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted infection prevention interventions.