A large number of adults and children consume soy in various forms, but little information is available regarding potential neurological side effects. Prior work indicates an association between the consumption of soy-based diets and seizure prevalence in mouse models of neurological disease and in children with autism. Herein, we sought to evaluate potential associations between the consumption of soy-based formula during infancy and disease comorbidities in persons with fragile X syndrome (FXS), while controlling for potentially confounding issues, through a retrospective case-control survey study of participants with FXS enrolled in the Fragile X Online Registry with Accessible Research Database (FORWARD). There was a 25% usage rate of soy-based infant formula in the study population. We found significant associations between the consumption of soy-based infant formula and the comorbidity of autism, gastrointestinal problems (GI) and allergies. Specifically, there was a 1.5-fold higher prevalence of autism, 1.9-fold GI problems and 1.7-fold allergies in participants reporting the use of soy-based infant formula. The major reason for starting soy-based infant formula was GI problems. The average age of seizure and allergy onset occurred long after the use of soy-based infant formula. We conclude that early-life feeding with soy-based infant formula is associated with the development of several disease comorbidities in FXS.
From 2009 to 2010, an experiment was conducted to increase response rates among African American mothers in the Wisconsin Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Sample members were randomly assigned to groups that received a prepaid, cash incentive of $5 (n = 219); a coupon for diapers valued at $6 (n = 210); or no incentive (n = 209). Incentives were included with the questionnaire, which was mailed to respondents. We examined the effects of the incentives on several outcomes, including response rates, cost effectiveness, survey response distributions, and item nonresponse. Response rates were significantly higher for the cash group than for the coupon (42.5 vs. 32.4%, P < .05) or no incentive group (42.5 vs. 30.1%, P < .01); the coupon and no incentive groups performed similarly. While absolute costs were the highest for the cash group, the cost per completed survey was the lowest. The incentives had limited effects on response distributions for specific survey questions. Although respondents completing the survey by mail in the cash and coupon groups exhibited a trend toward being less likely to have missing data, the effect was not significant. Compared to a coupon or no incentive, a small cash incentive significantly improved response rates and was cost effective among African American respondents in Wisconsin PRAMS. Incentives had only limited effects, however, on survey response distributions, and no significant effects on item nonresponse.
While collecting high quality data from physicians is critical, response rates for physician surveys are frequently low. A proven method for increasing response in mail surveys is to provide a small, prepaid monetary incentive in the initial mailing. More recently, researchers have begun experimenting with adding a second cash incentive in a follow-up contact in order to increase participation among more reluctant respondents. To assess the effects of sequential incentives on response rates, data quality, sample representativeness, and costs, physicians (N = 1,500) were randomly assigned to treatments that crossed the amount of a first ($5 or $10) and second ($0, $5, or $10) incentive to form the following groups: Group $5/$5; Group $5/$10; Group $10/$0; Group $10/$5; and Group $10/$10. Overall, second incentives were associated with higher response rates and lower costs per completed survey, and while they had no effect on item nonresponse, they increased sample representativeness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.