Modelling attrition and nonparticipation in a longitudinal study of prostate cancer

Abstract

BackgroundAttrition occurs when a participant fails to respond to one or more study waves. The accumulation of attrition over several waves can lower the sample size and power and create a final sample that could differ in characteristics than those who drop out. The main reason to conduct a longitudinal study is to analyze repeated measures; research subjects who drop out cannot be replaced easily. Our group recently investigated factors affecting nonparticipation (refusal) in the first wave of a population-based study of prostate cancer. In this study we assess factors affecting attrition in the second wave of the same study. We compare factors affecting nonparticipation in the second wave to the ones affecting nonparticipation in the first wave.MethodsInformation available on participants in the first wave was used to model attrition. Different sources of attrition were investigated separately. The overall and race-stratified factors affecting attrition were assessed. Kaplan-Meier survival curve estimates were calculated to assess the impact of follow-up time on participation.ResultsHigh cancer aggressiveness was the main predictor of attrition due to death or frailty. Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index increased the odds of attrition due to death or frailty only in African Americans (AAs). Young age at diagnosis for AAs and low income for European Americans (EAs) were predictors for attrition due to lost to follow-up. High cancer aggressiveness for AAs, low income for EAs, and lower patient provider communication scores for EAs were predictors for attrition due to refusal. These predictors of nonparticipation were not the same as those in wave 1. For short follow-up time, the participation probability of EAs was higher than that of AAs.ConclusionsPredictors of attrition can vary depending on the attrition source. Examining overall attrition (combining all sources of attrition under one category) instead of distinguishing among its different sources should be avoided. The factors affecting attrition in one wave can be different in a later wave and should be studied separately.

Sexual Functioning in Men With and Without Disabilities: Findings From a Representative Sample of Australian Men

“…Still, attrition between waves may have contributed to selection bias, even though retention into the second wave of Ten to Men was comparable to other contemporary longitudinal cohort studies [39,40].…”

Association Between Participant Retention and the Proportion of Included Elderly People in Rheumatology Trials: Results From a Series of Exploratory Meta‐Regression Analyses

“…A review of population‐based studies found higher age to be a predictor for dropping out, as did a longitudinal study on aging (29,31). Quite the contrary, younger age was found to be associated with attrition in a population‐based study on prostate cancer and in a randomized trial on weight loss and hypertension management (30,32). The only rheumatologic study that we could locate evaluated retention in an RA registry; here, those who dropped out were not found to be older than those still participating after 5 years of follow‐up (33).…”

Does quality of life return to pre-treatment levels five years after curative intent surgery for colorectal cancer? Evidence from the ColoREctal Wellbeing (CREW) study

“…Those with depression, aged �80 years, of non-White British ethnicity, who did not own their own home were more likely to have stopped participating. These characteristics are often associated with participants who do not continue in longitudinal studies [40]. It is possible that our analyses may underestimate difficulties and need.…”