Sex-differences in reasons for non-participation at recruitment: Geelong Osteoporosis Study

Abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding reasons for non-participation in health studies can help guide recruitment strategies and inform researchers about potential sources of bias in their study sample. Whilst there is a paucity of literature regarding this issue, it remains highly plausible that men and women may have varied reasons for declining an invitation to participate in research. We aimed to investigate sex-differences in the reasons for non-participation at baseline of the Geelong Osteoporosis Study (GOS).MethodsThe GOS, a prospective cohort study, randomly recruited men and women aged 20 years and over from a region in south-eastern Australia using Commonwealth electoral rolls (2001–06 and 1993–97, respectively). Reasons for non-participation (n=1,200) were documented during the two recruitment periods. We used the Pearson’s chi squared test to explore differences in the reasons for non-participation between men and women.ResultsNon-participation in the male cohort was greater than in the female cohort (32.9% vs. 22.9%; p<0.001). Overall, there were sex-differences in the reasons provided for non-participation (p<0.001); apparent differences related to time constraints (men 26.3% vs. women 10.4%), frailty/inability to cope with or understand the study (men 18.7% vs. women 30.6%), and reluctance over medical testing (men 1.1% vs women 9.9%). No sex-differences were observed for non-participation related to personal reason/disinterest, and language- or travel-related reasons.ConclusionsImproving participation rates in epidemiological studies may require different recruitment strategies for men and women in order to address sex-specific concerns about participating in research.

Psychotropic Polypharmacy in Adults 55 Years or Older: A Risk for Impaired Global Cognition, Executive Function, and Mobility

“…In addition, because 30% of individuals older than 65 years fall every year (Hopewell et al, 2018), and since we specifically searched for individuals who had fallen in the previous year, after our 5 years of inclusion we had likely collected a significant part of the general population. Regarding the small number of men in our sample, it is inherent to the lower number of men than women admitted to the hospital, and who experienced a fall with a low-energy fracture (21% in the initial description of the osteoporosis cohort of the University hospital in Caen (Levasseur et al, 2007) and 16% during the inclusion period of the present study), together with the well-known fact that men are less likely to agree to participate in this type of research (Markanday et al, 2013). Moreover, although our sample size is relatively small, the results of the multivariate logistic regression can be considered as robust because the confidence intervals are relatively narrow except for the MMSE and TMT B-A for which the lower limit confidence interval is, nonetheless, close to two.…”

Musculoskeletal decline and mortality: prospective data from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study

“…Women aged 20 years and over were enrolled 1993–1997, with a participation of 77.1%. Details of non‐participation have been described elsewhere . For this study, we included only women aged 50 years and over.…”

“…Details of non-participation have been described elsewhere. 28 For this study, we included only women aged 50 years and over. Of the potential 837 women, 87 were excluded because measures of lean mass were unavailable for analysis including 15 with bilateral prostheses.…”

The psychological factor ‘self-blame’ predicts overuse injury among top-level Swedish track and field athletes: a 12-month cohort study

“…We had a 74% response rate to the baseline psychological survey and fewer than expected males and adults responded. Higher research participation rates among females has also been reported from other settings,33 while the higher participation rate among the youth athletes may be explained by parental influence. Nonetheless, there was no difference between responders and non-responders with regard to having sustained a severe injury the previous year.…”