Dataset Information

Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence.

ABSTRACT: Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) are recommended for use by 3.4 billion people at risk of malaria world-wide. Policy makers rely on measurements of ITN use to optimize malaria prevention efforts. Self-reports are the most common means of assessing ITN use, but self-reports may be biased in a way that reduces their reliability as a proxy for ITN adherence. This meta-analysis compared self-reported and two methods which are more objective measures of ITN use to explore whether self-reports overestimate actual ITN adherence.A comprehensive search of electronic databases and hand searching reference lists resulted in screening 2885 records and 202 articles were read in full. Sixteen articles with comparable data were chosen for the meta-analysis. Comparable data was defined as self-reported and objectively measured ITN use (observation of a mounted ITN or surprise visits confirming use) at the same unit of analysis, covering the same time period and same population. A random effects model was used to determine a weighted average risk difference between self-reported and objectively measured ITN use. Additional stratified analyses were conducted to explore study heterogeneity.Self-reported ITN use is 8 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI: 3 to 13) higher than objectively measured ITN use, representing a 13.6% overestimation relative to the proportion measured as adherent to ITN use by objective measures. Wide variations in the discrepancies between self-reports and objective measures were unable to be explained using stratified analyses of variables including location, year of publication, seasonality and others.Self-reports overestimate ITN adherence relative to objectively measured ITN use by 13.6% and do so in an unpredictable manner that raises questions about the reliability of using self-reported ITN use alone as a surveillance tool and a guide for making policy decisions.

SUBMITTER: Krezanoski PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5878861 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence.

Krezanoski Paul J PJ Bangsberg David R DR Tsai Alexander C AC

Journal of global health 20180601 1

<h4>Background</h4>Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) are recommended for use by 3.4 billion people at risk of malaria world-wide. Policy makers rely on measurements of ITN use to optimize malaria prevention efforts. Self-reports are the most common means of assessing ITN use, but self-reports may be biased in a way that reduces their reliability as a proxy for ITN adherence. This meta-analysis compared self-reported and two methods which are more objective measures of ITN use to explore whether ...[more]

PMID: 29619211

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccumulating evidence suggests that the built environment is associated with physical activity. The extent to which the built environment may support adherence to physical activity interventions is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the neighbourhood built environment constrains or facilitates adherence and steps taken during a 12-week internet-delivered pedometer-based physical activity intervention (UWALK).MethodThe study was undertaken in Calgary (Canada) between May 2016 and August 2017. Inactive adults (n = 573) completed a telephone survey measuring sociodemographic characteristics and perceived neighbourhood walkability. Following the survey, participants were mailed a pedometer and instructions for joining UWALK. Participants were asked to report their daily pedometer steps into the online program on a weekly basis for 12 weeks (84 days). Walk Score® estimated objective neighbourhood walkability and the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale-Abbreviated (NEWS-A) measured participants self-reported neighbourhood walkability. Regression models estimated covariate-adjusted associations of objective and self-reported walkability with: 1) adherence to the UWALK intervention (count of days with steps reported and count of days with 10000 steps reported), and; 2) average daily pedometer steps.ResultsOn average, participants undertook 8565 (SD = 3030) steps per day, reported steps on 67 (SD = 22.3) of the 84 days, and achieved ≥10000 steps on 22 (SD = 20.5) of the 84 days. Adjusting for covariates, a one-unit increase in self-reported walkability was associated on average with 45.76 (95CI 14.91, 76.61) more daily pedometer steps. Walk Score® was not significantly associated with steps. Neither objective nor self-reported walkability were significantly associated with the UWALK adherence outcomes.ConclusionThe neighbourhood built environment may support pedometer-measured physical activity but may not influence adherence to pedometer interventions. Perceived walkability may be more important than objectively-measured walkability in supporting physical activity during pedometer interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behavior (SED) is a potential risk factor for poor pregnancy outcomes. We evaluated the validity of several common and one new method to assess SED across three trimesters of pregnancy. METHODS:This cohort study of pregnant women measured objective and self-reported SED each trimester via thigh-worn activPAL3 micro (criterion), waist-worn Actigraph GT3X, and self-report from the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) and the de novo Sedentary Behavior Two Domain Questionnaire (SB2D). SED (hours per day) and percent time in SED (SED%) from activPAL were compared to GT3X, SB2D, and PPAQ using Pearson's r, ICC, Bland-Altman analysis, and comparison of criterion SED and SED% across tertiles of alternative methods. RESULTS:Fifty-eight women (mean age 31.5 ± 4.8 years; pre-pregnancy BMI 25.1 ± 5.6 kg/m2; 76% white) provided three trimesters of valid activPAL data. Compared to activPAL, GT3X had agreement ranging from r = 0.54-0.66 and ICC = 0.52-0.65. Bland-Altman plots revealed small mean differences and unpatterned errors, but wide limits of agreement (greater than ±2 h and ± 15%). The SB2D and PPAQ had r < 0.5 and ICC < 0.3 vs. activPAL SED, with lower agreement during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, and performed poorly in Bland-Altman analyses. SED% from the modified SB2D performed best of the self-reported instruments with modest mean differences, r ranging from 0.55 to 0.60, and ICCs from 0.31-0.33; though, limits of agreement were greater than ±35%. Significant trends in activPAL SED were observed across increasing tertiles of SB2D SED in the 1st and 3rd trimesters (both p ≤ 0.001), but not the 2nd trimester (p = 0.425); and for PPAQ SED in the 1st and 2nd trimesters (both p < 0.05), but not the 3rd trimester (p = 0.158). AcitvPAL SED and SED% increased significantly across tertiles of GT3X SED and SED% as well as SB2D SED% (all p-for-trend ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to activPAL, waist-worn GT3X produced moderate agreement, though similar mean estimates of SED across pregnancy. Self-report questionnaires had large absolute error and wide limits of agreement for SED hr./day; SB2D measurement of SED% was the best self-report method. These data suggest activPAL be used to measure SED when possible, followed by GT3X, and - when necessary - SB2D assessing SED% in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03084302 on 3/20/2017.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate data on hypertension is essential to inform decision-making. Hypertension prevalence may be underestimated by population-based surveys due to misclassification of health status by participants. Therefore, adjustment for misclassification bias is required when relying on self-reports. This study aims to quantify misclassification bias in self-reported hypertension prevalence and prevalence ratios in the Portuguese component of the European Health Interview Survey (INS2014), and illustrate application of multiple imputation (MIME) for bias correction using measured high blood pressure data from the first Portuguese health examination survey (INSEF).MethodsWe assumed that objectively measured hypertension status was missing for INS2014 participants (n = 13,937) and imputed it using INSEF (n = 4910) as auxiliary data. Self-reported, objectively measured and MIME-corrected hypertension prevalence and prevalence ratios (PR) by sex, age group and education were estimated. Bias in self-reported and MIME-corrected estimates were computed using objectively measured INSEF data as a gold-standard.ResultsSelf-reported INS2014 data underestimated hypertension prevalence in all population subgroups, with misclassification bias ranging from 5.2 to 18.6 percentage points (pp). After MIME-correction, prevalence estimates increased and became closer to objectively measured ones, with bias reduction to 0 pp - 5.7 pp. Compared to objectively measured INSEF, self-reported INS2014 data considerably underestimated prevalence ratio by sex (PR = 0.8, 95CI = [0.7, 0.9] vs. PR = 1.2, 95CI = [1.1, 1.4]). MIME successfully corrected direction of association with sex in bivariate (PR = 1.1, 95CI = [1.0, 1.3]) and multivariate analyses (PR = 1.2, 95CI = [1.0, 1.3]). Misclassification bias in hypertension prevalence ratios by education and age group were less pronounced and did not require correction in multivariate analyses.ConclusionsOur results highlight the importance of misclassification bias analysis in self-reported hypertension. Multiple imputation is a feasible approach to adjust for misclassification bias in prevalence estimates and exposure-outcomes associations in survey data.

Dataset Information

Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence.

Publications

Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets