Dataset Information

Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In using regularly collected or existing surveillance data to characterize engagement in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services among marginalized populations, differences in sampling methods may produce different pictures of the target population and may therefore result in different priorities for response. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to use existing data to evaluate the sample distribution of eight studies of female sex workers (FSW) and men who have sex with men (MSM), who were recruited using different sampling approaches in two locations within Sub-Saharan Africa: Manzini, Swaziland and Yaoundé, Cameroon. METHODS:MSM and FSW participants were recruited using either respondent-driven sampling (RDS) or venue-based snowball sampling. Recruitment took place between 2011 and 2016. Participants at each study site were administered a face-to-face survey to assess sociodemographics, along with the prevalence of self-reported HIV status, frequency of HIV testing, stigma, and other HIV-related characteristics. Crude and RDS-adjusted prevalence estimates were calculated. Crude prevalence estimates from the venue-based snowball samples were compared with the overlap of the RDS-adjusted prevalence estimates, between both FSW and MSM in Cameroon and Swaziland. RESULTS:RDS samples tended to be younger (MSM aged 18-21 years in Swaziland: 47.6% [139/310] in RDS vs 24.3% [42/173] in Snowball, in Cameroon: 47.9% [99/306] in RDS vs 20.1% [52/259] in Snowball; FSW aged 18-21 years in Swaziland 42.5% [82/325] in RDS vs 8.0% [20/249] in Snowball; in Cameroon 15.6% [75/576] in RDS vs 8.1% [25/306] in Snowball). They were less educated (MSM: primary school completed or less in Swaziland 42.6% [109/310] in RDS vs 4.0% [7/173] in Snowball, in Cameroon 46.2% [138/306] in RDS vs 14.3% [37/259] in Snowball; FSW: primary school completed or less in Swaziland 86.6% [281/325] in RDS vs 23.9% [59/247] in Snowball, in Cameroon 87.4% [520/576] in RDS vs 77.5% [238/307] in Snowball) than the snowball samples. In addition, RDS samples indicated lower exposure to HIV prevention information, less knowledge about HIV prevention, limited access to HIV prevention tools such as condoms, and less-reported frequency of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV testing as compared with the venue-based samples. Findings pertaining to the level of disclosure of sexual practices and sexual practice-related stigma were mixed. CONCLUSIONS:Samples generated by RDS and venue-based snowball sampling produced significantly different prevalence estimates of several important characteristics. These findings are tempered by limitations to the application of both approaches in practice. Ultimately, these findings provide further context for understanding existing surveillance data and how differences in methods of sampling can influence both the type of individuals captured and whether or not these individuals are representative of the larger target population. These data highlight the need to consider how program coverage estimates of marginalized populations are determined when characterizing the level of unmet need.

SUBMITTER: Rao A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5670312 | biostudies-other | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling.

Rao Amrita A Stahlman Shauna S Hargreaves James J Weir Sharon S Edwards Jessie J Rice Brian B Kochelani Duncan D Mavimbela Mpumelelo M Baral Stefan S

JMIR public health and surveillance 20171020 4

<h4>Background</h4>In using regularly collected or existing surveillance data to characterize engagement in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services among marginalized populations, differences in sampling methods may produce different pictures of the target population and may therefore result in different priorities for response.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to use existing data to evaluate the sample distribution of eight studies of female sex workers (FSW) and men who ha ...[more]

PMID: 29054832

Similar Datasets

Project description:Respondent-driven sampling is a novel variant of link-tracing sampling for estimating the characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as HIV prevalence in sex workers. Despite its use by leading health organizations, the performance of this method in realistic situations is still largely unknown. We evaluated respondent-driven sampling by comparing estimates from a respondent-driven sampling survey with total population data.Total population data on age, tribe, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual activity, and HIV status were available on a population of 2402 male household heads from an open cohort in rural Uganda. A respondent-driven sampling (RDS) survey was carried out in this population, using current methods of sampling (RDS sample) and statistical inference (RDS estimates). Analyses were carried out for the full RDS sample and then repeated for the first 250 recruits (small sample).We recruited 927 household heads. Full and small RDS samples were largely representative of the total population, but both samples underrepresented men who were younger, of higher socioeconomic status, and with unknown sexual activity and HIV status. Respondent-driven sampling statistical inference methods failed to reduce these biases. Only 31%-37% (depending on method and sample size) of RDS estimates were closer to the true population proportions than the RDS sample proportions. Only 50%-74% of respondent-driven sampling bootstrap 95% confidence intervals included the population proportion.Respondent-driven sampling produced a generally representative sample of this well-connected nonhidden population. However, current respondent-driven sampling inference methods failed to reduce bias when it occurred. Whether the data required to remove bias and measure precision can be collected in a respondent-driven sampling survey is unresolved. Respondent-driven sampling should be regarded as a (potentially superior) form of convenience sampling method, and caution is required when interpreting findings based on the sampling method.

Project description:People who use illicit drugs (PWUDs) have been identified as a key at-risk group for tuberculosis (TB). Examination of illicit drug use networks has potential to assess the risk of TB exposure and disease progression. Research also is needed to assess mechanisms for accelerated TB transmission in this population. This study aims to 1) assess the rate of TB exposure, risk of disease progression, and disease burden among PWUD; 2) estimate the proportion of active TB cases resulting from recent transmission within this network; and 3) evaluate whether PWUD with TB disease have physiologic characteristics associated with more efficient TB transmission. Our cross-sectional, observational study aims to assess TB transmission through illicit drug use networks, focusing on methamphetamine and Mandrax (methaqualone) use, in a high TB burden setting and identify mechanisms underlying accelerated transmission. We will recruit and enroll 750 PWUD (living with and without HIV) through respondent driven sampling in Worcester, South Africa. Drug use will be measured through self-report and biological measures, with sputum specimens collected to identify TB disease by Xpert Ultra (Cepheid) and mycobacterial culture. We will co-enroll those with microbiologic evidence of TB disease in Aim 2 for molecular and social network study. Whole genome sequencing of Mycobacteria tuberculosis (Mtb) specimens and social contact surveys will be done for those diagnosed with TB. For Aim 3, aerosolized Mtb will be compared in individuals with newly diagnosed TB who do and do not smoke illicit drug. Knowledge from this study will provide the basis for a strategy to interrupt TB transmission in PWUD and provide insight into how this fuels overall community transmission. Results have potential for informing interventions to reduce TB spread applicable to high TB and HIV burden settings. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT041515602. Date of Registration: 5 November 2019.

Project description:BackgroundEstimates of the sizes of hidden populations, including female sex workers (FSW), men who have sex with men (MSM), and people who inject drugs (PWID), are essential for understanding the magnitude of vulnerabilities, health care needs, risk behaviors, and HIV and other infections.ObjectiveThis article advances the successive sampling-population size estimation (SS-PSE) method by examining the performance of a modification allowing visibility to be jointly modeled with population size in the context of 15 datasets. Datasets are from respondent-driven sampling (RDS) surveys of FSW, MSM, and PWID from three cities in Armenia. We compare and evaluate the accuracy of our imputed visibility population size estimates to those found for the same populations through other unpublished methods. We then suggest questions that are useful for eliciting information needed to compute SS-PSE and provide guidelines and caveats to improve the implementation of SS-PSE for real data.MethodsSS-PSE approximates the RDS sampling mechanism via the successive sampling model and uses the order of selection of the sample to provide information on the distribution of network sizes over the population members. We incorporate visibility imputation, a measure of a person's propensity to participate in the study, given that inclusion probabilities for RDS are unknown and social network sizes, often used as a proxy for inclusion probability, are subject to measurement errors from self-reported study data.ResultsFSW in Yerevan (2012, 2016) and Vanadzor (2016) as well as PWID in Yerevan (2014), Gyumri (2016), and Vanadzor (2016) had great fits with prior estimations. The MSM populations in all three cities had inconsistencies with expert prior values. The maximum low prior value was larger than the minimum high prior value, making a great fit impossible. One possible explanation is the inclusion of transgender individuals in the MSM populations during these studies. There could be differences between what experts perceive as the size of the population, based on who is an eligible member of that population, and what members of the population perceive. There could also be inconsistencies among different study participants, as some may include transgender individuals in their accounting of personal network size, while others may not. Because of these difficulties, the transgender population was split apart from the MSM population for the 2018 study.ConclusionsPrior estimations from expert opinions may not always be accurate. RDS surveys should be assessed to ensure that they have met all of the assumptions, that variables have reached convergence, and that the network structure of the population does not have bottlenecks. We recommend that SS-PSE be used in conjunction with other population size estimations commonly used in RDS, as well as results of other years of SS-PSE, to ensure generation of the most accurate size estimation.

Dataset Information

Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling.

Publications

Sampling Key Populations for HIV Surveillance: Results From Eight Cross-Sectional Studies Using Respondent-Driven Sampling and Venue-Based Snowball Sampling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets