Spatial, temporal and relational patterns in respondent-driven sampling: evidence from a social network study of rural drug users

Gaines

Lozada³

et al. 2014

AIDS Behav

Respondent-driven sampling’s (RDS) widespread use and reliance on untested assumptions suggests a need for new exploratory/diagnostic tests. We assessed geographic recruitment bias and outcome-correlated recruitment among 1048 RDS-recruited people who inject drugs (Tijuana, Mexico). Surveys gathered demographics, drug/sex behaviors, activity locations, and recruiter-recruit pairs. Simulations assessed geographic and network clustering of active syphilis (RPR titers≥1:8). Gender-specific predicted probabilities were estimated using logistic regression with GEE and robust standard errors. Active syphilis prevalence was 7% (crude: men=5.7% and women=16.6%; RDS-adjusted: men=6.7% and women=7.6%). Syphilis clustered in the Zona Norte, a neighborhood known for drug and sex markets. Network simulations revealed geographic recruitment bias and non-random recruitment by syphilis status. Gender-specific prevalence estimates accounting for clustering were highest among those living/working/injecting/buying drugs in the Zona Norte and directly/indirectly connected to syphilis cases (men:15.9%, women:25.6%) and lowest among those with neither exposure (men:3.0%, women:6.1%). Future RDS analyses should assess/account for network and spatial dependencies.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Outcome-Correlated Recruitment and Geographic Recruitment Bias in a Respondent-Driven Sample of People Who Inject Drugs in Tijuana, Mexico

Gaines

Lozada³

et al. 2014

AIDS Behav

“…Participants were recruited using respondent-driven sampling (RDS), in which participants were given three coupons to recruit their network members, who if enrolled in the study, were given three coupons to distribute, and so on; this process was initiated by 108 seeds (57 of whom recruited no one) and proceeded through a maximum of 14 waves (details described elsewhere [45, 46]). Once enrolled, participants completed questionnaires administered by community-based interviewers who had received training in human subjects’ research ethics.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of name and age data provided about network members in a social network study of people who use drugs: implications for constructing sociometric networks

Young

et al. 2016

Annals of Epidemiology

Purpose Network analysis has become increasingly popular in epidemiologic research, but the accuracy of data key to constructing risk networks is largely unknown. Using network data from people who use drugs (PWUD), the study examined how accurately PWUD reported their network members’ (i.e., alters’) names and ages. Methods Data were collected from 2008 to 2010 from 503 PWUD residing in rural Appalachia. Network ties (n=897) involved recent (past 6 months) sex, drug co-usage, and/or social support. Participants provided alters’ names, ages, and relationship-level characteristics; these data were cross-referenced to that of other participants to identify participant-participant relationships and to determine the accuracy of reported ages (years) and names (binary). Results Participants gave alters’ exact names and ages within two years in 75% and 79% of relationships, respectively. Accurate name was more common in relationships that were reciprocally reported and those involving social support and male alters. Age was more accurate in reciprocal ties and those characterized by kinship, sexual partnership, recruitment referral, and financial support, and less accurate for ties with older alters. Conclusions Most participants reported alters’ characteristics accurately, and name accuracy was not significantly different in relationships involving drug-related/sexual behavior compared to those not involving these behaviors.

“…A greater sense of community in rural Appalachia and differences in the composition of rural and urban drug use networks may also partially explain this finding. For example, compared with similarly recruited PWUD in urban settings, drug use networks in the larger PWUD cohort study in rural Appalachia were comprised of more family members; 15 the close interpersonal bonds that characterize Appalachian families 18 may partially explain the greater priority that rural participants placed on protecting the locations of others' homes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Briefly, fifteen Mid-Atlantic city residents who reported drug use (past 6 months) were enrolled between November 2014 and April 2015. Between November 2015 and March 2016, twenty persons who reported drug use (past 6 months) were purposively selected for diversity on age, gender, arrest history, injection status, and type(s) of drug(s) used from an ongoing longitudinal study of PWUD in rural Eastern Kentucky (i.e., ‘SNAP’, described elsewhere 15 ). All study procedures and materials were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Boards at [Blinded Institutions].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A rural/urban comparison of privacy and confidentiality concerns associated with providing sensitive location information in epidemiologic research involving persons who use drugs

Young

Havens

2017

Addictive Behaviors

Background Analyses that link contextual factors with individual-level data can improve our understanding of the “risk environment”; however, the accuracy of information provided by participants about locations where illegal/stigmatized behaviors occur may be influenced by privacy/confidentiality concerns that may vary by setting and/or data collection approach. Methods We recruited thirty-five persons who use drugs from a rural Appalachian town and a Mid-Atlantic city to participate in in-depth interviews. Through thematic analyses, we identified and compared privacy/confidentiality concerns associated with two survey methods that (1) collect self-reported addresses/cross-streets and (2) use an interactive web-based map to find/confirm locations in rural and urban settings. Results Concerns differed more by setting than between methods. For example, (1) rural participants valued interviewer rapport and protections provided by the Certificate of Confidentiality more; (2) locations considered to be sensitive differed in rural (i.e., others' homes) and urban (i.e., where drugs were used) settings; and (3) urban participants were more likely to view providing cross-streets as an acceptable alternative to providing exact addresses for sensitive locations and to prefer the web-based map approach. Conclusion Rural-urban differences in privacy/confidentiality concerns reflect contextual differences (i.e., where drugs are used/purchased, population density, and prior drug-related arrests). Strategies to alleviate concerns include: (1) obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality, (2) collect geographic data at the scale necessary for proposed analyses, and (3) permit participants to provide intersections/landmarks in close proximity to actual locations rather than exact addresses or to skip questions where providing an intersection/landmark would not obfuscate the actual address.