List randomization for eliciting HIV status and sexual behaviors in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a randomized experiment using known true values for validation.
List randomization for eliciting HIV status and sexual behaviors in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a randomized experiment using known true values for validation.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-018-0507-9
复制
发表时间：
2018-05-25
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Fink G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haber N;Harling G;Cohen J;Mutevedzi T;Tanser F;Gareta D;Herbst K;Pillay D;Bärnighausen T;Fink G
列表随机化（LR）是一种旨在减轻与敏感真/假问题相关的偏见的调查方法，最近受到了研究人员的关注。然而，其有效性的测试是有限的，没有研究比较LR引发的结果与个人已知的真相。我们在夸祖鲁-纳塔尔的艾滋病毒高流行环境中进行了一项艾滋病毒相关反应的LR测试。通过使用研究人员已知的HIV血清状态和HIV检测拒绝数据，我们能够评估LR和直接问卷对个人已知真相的表现。参与者是从2016年非洲卫生研究所人口监测系统的参与名单中招募的，对艾滋病毒阳性者进行了过度抽样。参与者被随机分配到两个研究组。在A组中，参与者被呈现五个真实/虚假陈述，其中一个是敏感项目，其他的是非敏感项目。然后，参与者被问到他们认为五个陈述中有多少是正确的。在组B中，分别询问参与者的每个陈述。LR估计值使用两组的数据，而直接估计值仅来自B组。我们比较了通过人口监测系统收集的艾滋病毒检测和血清状态数据的反应。我们招募了483名参与者，262名（54%）被随机分配到A组，221名（46%）被随机分配到B组。LR估计56%（95% CI：40 - 72%）的人群为HIV阴性，而使用直接估计值为47%（95% CI：39 - 54%）;真实值的人群估计值为32%（95% CI：28 - 36%）。LR估计得出的HIV检测拒绝率为55%（95% CI：37 - 73%），而直接估计为13%（95% CI：8 - 17%），基于观察到的既往行为为15%（95% CI：12 - 18%）。在这种情况下，LR表现不佳，当与已知的真相相比，并没有改善估计直接提问的方法时，与已知的真相。这些结果可能反映了LR方法在执行或理解方面的困难，LR方法本身就很复杂。对交付程序的调整可能会提高LR的有用性。进一步调查参与者在回答LR调查的认知过程是必要的。本文的在线版本（10.1186/s12874-018-0507-9）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
List randomization (LR), a survey method intended to mitigate biases related to sensitive true/false questions, has received recent attention from researchers. However, tests of its validity are limited, with no study comparing LR-elicited results with individually known truths. We conducted a test of LR for HIV-related responses in a high HIV prevalence setting in KwaZulu-Natal. By using researcher-known HIV serostatus and HIV test refusal data, we were able to assess how LR and direct questionnaires perform against individual known truth. Participants were recruited from the participation list from the 2016 round of the Africa Health Research Institute demographic surveillance system, oversampling individuals who were HIV positive. Participants were randomized to two study arms. In Arm A, participants were presented five true/false statements, one of which was the sensitive item, the others non-sensitive. Participants were then asked how many of the five statements they believed were true. In Arm B, participants were asked about each statement individually. LR estimates used data from both arms, while direct estimates were generated from Arm B alone. We compared elicited responses to HIV testing and serostatus data collected through the demographic surveillance system. We enrolled 483 participants, 262 (54%) were randomly assigned to Arm A, and 221 (46%) to Arm B. LR estimated 56% (95% CI: 40 to 72%) of the population to be HIV-negative, compared to 47% (95% CI: 39 to 54%) using direct estimates; the population-estimate of the true value was 32% (95% CI: 28 to 36%). LR estimates yielded HIV test refusal percentages of 55% (95% CI: 37 to 73%) compared to 13% (95% CI: 8 to 17%) by direct estimation, and 15% (95% CI: 12 to 18%) based on observed past behavior. In this context, LR performed poorly when compared to known truth, and did not improve estimates over direct questioning methods when comparing with known truth. These results may reflect difficulties in implementation or comprehension of the LR approach, which is inherently complex. Adjustments to delivery procedures may improve LR’s usefulness. Further investigation of the cognitive processes of participants in answering LR surveys is warranted. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0507-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1363/3901413
发表时间：
2013-03-01
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Kelly, Christine A.;Soler-Hampejsek, Erica;Hewett, Paul C.
通讯作者：
Hewett, Paul C.
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Tsuchiya, Takahiro;Hirai, Yoko;Ono, Shigeru
通讯作者：
Ono, Shigeru
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
LaBrie, JW;Earleywine, M
通讯作者：
Earleywine, M
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Blair, Graeme;Imai, Kosuke
通讯作者：
Imai, Kosuke
影响因子：
7
作者：
Ulrich, Rolf;Schroeter, Hannes;Simon, Perikles
通讯作者：
Simon, Perikles