BMC Medical Research Methodology (Sep 2012)

Determinants of non- response to a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the EPIC-PANACEA study

  • May Anne M,
  • Adema Lotte E,
  • Romaguera Dora,
  • Vergnaud Anne-Claire,
  • Agudo Antonio,
  • Ekelund Ulf,
  • Steffen Annika,
  • Orfanos Philippos,
  • Slimani Nadia,
  • Rinaldi Sabina,
  • Mouw Traci,
  • Rohrmann Sabine,
  • Hermann Silke,
  • Boeing Heiner,
  • Bergmann Manuela M,
  • Jakobsen Marianne,
  • Overvad Kim,
  • Wareham Nicholas J,
  • Gonzalez Carlos,
  • Tjonneland Anne,
  • Halkjaer Jytte,
  • Key Timothy J,
  • Spencer Elizabeth A,
  • Hellstrom Veronica,
  • Manjer Jonas,
  • Hedblad Bo,
  • Lund Eiliv,
  • Braaten Tonje,
  • Clavel-Chapelon Françoise,
  • Boutron-Ruault Marie-Christine,
  • Rodríguez Laudina,
  • Sánchez Maria J,
  • Dorronsoro Miren,
  • Barricarte Aurelio,
  • Huerta Jose,
  • Naska Androniki,
  • Trichopoulou Antonia,
  • Palli Domenico,
  • Pala Valeria,
  • Norat Teresa,
  • Mattiello Amalia,
  • Tumino Rosario,
  • van der A Daphne,
  • Bueno-de-Mesquita H,
  • Riboli Elio,
  • Peeters Petra HM

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-148
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
p. 148

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background This paper discusses whether baseline demographic, socio-economic, health variables, length of follow-up and method of contacting the participants predict non-response to the invitation for a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the European multi-center EPIC-PANACEA study. Methods Over 500.000 participants from several centers in ten European countries recruited between 1992 and 2000 were contacted 2–11 years later to update data on lifestyle and body weight. Length of follow-up as well as the method of approaching differed between the collaborating study centers. Non-responders were compared with responders using multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results Overall response for the second assessment was high (81.6%). Compared to postal surveys, centers where the participants completed the questionnaire by phone attained a higher response. Response was also high in centers with a short follow-up period. Non-response was higher in participants who were male (odds ratio 1.09 (confidence interval 1.07; 1.11), aged under 40 years (1.96 (1.90; 2.02), living alone (1.40 (1.37; 1.43), less educated (1.35 (1.12; 1.19), of poorer health (1.33 (1.27; 1.39), reporting an unhealthy lifestyle and who had either a low (25, 1.08 (1.06; 1.10); especially ≥30 kg/m2, 1.26 (1.23; 1.29)). Conclusions Cohort studies may enhance cohort maintenance by paying particular attention to the subgroups that are most unlikely to respond and by an active recruitment strategy using telephone interviews.

Keywords