Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The socio-economic patterning of survey participation and non-response error in a multilevel study of food purchasing behaviour: area- and individual-level characteristics

  • Gavin Turrell (a1), Carla Patterson (a1), Brian Oldenburg (a1), Trish Gould (a1) and Marie-Andree Roy (a1)...

Abstract

Objective:

To undertake an assessment of survey participation and non-response error in a population-based study that examined the relationship between socio-economic position and food purchasing behaviour.

Design and setting:

The study was conducted in Brisbane City (Australia) in 2000. The sample was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Respondents were recruited using a range of strategies that attempted to maximise the involvement of persons from disadvantaged backgrounds: respondents were contacted by personal visit and data were collected using home-based face-to-face interviews; multiple call-backs on different days and at different times were used; and a financial gratuity was provided.

Participants:

Non-institutionalised residents of private dwellings (n = 1003), located in 50 small areas that differed in their socio-economic characteristics.

Results:

Rates of survey participation – measured by non-contacts, exclusions, dropped cases, response rates and completions – were similar across areas, suggesting that residents of socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged areas were equally likely to be recruited. Individual-level analysis, however, showed that respondents and non-respondents differed significantly in their sociodemographic and food purchasing characteristics: non-respondents were older, less educated and exhibited different purchasing behaviours. Misclassification bias probably accounted for the inconsistent pattern of association between the area- and individual-level results. Estimates of bias due to non-response indicated that although respondents and non-respondents were qualitatively different, the magnitude of error associated with this differential was minimal.

Conclusions:

Socio-economic position measured at the individual level is a strong and consistent predictor of survey non-participation. Future studies that set out to examine the relationship between socio-economic position and diet need to adopt sampling strategies and data collection methods that maximise the likelihood of recruiting participants from all points on the socio-economic spectrum, and particularly persons from disadvantaged backgrounds. Study designs that are not sensitive to the difficulties associated with recruiting a socio-economically representative sample are likely to produce biased estimates (underestimates) of socio-economic differences in the dietary outcome being investigated.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The socio-economic patterning of survey participation and non-response error in a multilevel study of food purchasing behaviour: area- and individual-level characteristics
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The socio-economic patterning of survey participation and non-response error in a multilevel study of food purchasing behaviour: area- and individual-level characteristics
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The socio-economic patterning of survey participation and non-response error in a multilevel study of food purchasing behaviour: area- and individual-level characteristics
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email g.turrell@qut.edu.au

References

Hide All
1Locker, D. Response and non-response bias in oral health surveys. J. Public Health Dent. 2000; 60: 7281.
2Andersen, R, Kasper, J, Frankel, MR, eds. Total Survey Error.San Francisco CA:, Jossey-Bass, 1979.
3Groves, RM, Couper, MP. Non-response in Household Interview Surveys. New York: Wiley, 1998.
4Groves, RM. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: Wiley, 1989.
5Dillman, DA. The design and administration of mail surveys. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1991; 17: 225–49.
6Locker, D. Effects of non-response on estimates derived from an oral health survey of older adults. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1993; 21: 108–13.
7Turrell, G. Income non-reporting: implications for health inequalities research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2000; 54: 207–14.
8Turrell, G, Najman, JM. Collecting food-related data from low socioeconomic groups: how adequate are our research designs? Aust. J. Public Health 1995; 19: 410–6.
9Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and Housing: Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas. Information Paper, Catalogue No. 2039.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1998.
10National Health and Medical Research Council. Dietary Guidelines for Australians. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1991.
11Research Triangle Institute. SUDAAN User's Manual, Release 8.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 2001.
12Hoeymans, N, Feskens, EJM, Van Den Bos, GAM, Kromhout, D. Non-response bias in a study of cardiovascular diseases, functional status and self-rated health among elderly men. Age and Ageing 1998; 27: 3540.
13Blalock, HM. Conceptualization and Measurement in the Social Sciences. Beverley Hills CA:, Sage, 1989.
14Macintyre, S, Ellaway, A. Ecological approaches: rediscovering the role of the physical and social environment. In: Berkman, LF, Kawachi, I, eds. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; 332–48.
15Roberts, PJ, Roberts, C, Sibbald, B, Torgerson, DJ. The effect of a direct payment or a lottery on questionnaire response rates: a randomised controlled trial. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2000; 54: 71–2.
16Hill, A, Roberts, J, Ewings, P, Gunnell, D. Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey. J. Public Health Med. 1997; 19: 203–7.
17O'Neill, TW, Marsden, D, Silman, AJ and the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study Group. Differences in the characteristics of responders and non-responders in a prevalence survey of vertebral osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int. 1995; 5: 327–34.
18Van den Akker, M, Buntinx, F, Metsemakers, JFM, Knottnerus, JA. Morbidity in responders and non-responders in a register-based population survey. Fam. Pract. 1998; 15: 261–3.
19Sheikh, K, Mattingly, S. Investigating non-response bias in mail surveys. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1981; 35: 293–6.
20Melton, LJ, Dyck, PJ, Karnes, JL, O'Brien, PC, Service, FJ. Non-response bias in studies of diabetic complications: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1993; 46: 341–8.
21Hyndman, JCG, Holman, CD, Hockey, RL, Donovan, RJ, Corti, B, Rivera, J. Misclassification of social disadvantage based on geographical areas: comparison of postcode and collector's districts analyses. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1995; 24: 165–76.
22Turrell, G. Determinants of healthy food choice in a population-based sample. Am. J. Health Behav. 1998; 22: 342–57.
23Patterson, BH, Block, G. Food choices and the cancer guidelines. Am. J. Public Health 1988; 78: 282–6.
24Turrell, G. Determinants of gender differences in dietary behavior. Nutr. Res. 1997; 17: 1105–20.
25Shimakawa, T, Sorlie, P, Carpenter, MA, Dennis, B, Tell, GS, Watson, R, et al. Dietary intake patterns and sociodemographic factors in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Prev. Med. 1994; 23: 769–80.
26Worsley, A, Crawford, D. Who complies with the Australian Dietary Guidelines?. Nutr. Res. 1986; 6: 2934.
27Turrell, G. Compliance with the Australian Dietary Guidelines: have population-based health promotion messages been effective? Nutr. Health 1997; 11: 271–88.

Keywords

The socio-economic patterning of survey participation and non-response error in a multilevel study of food purchasing behaviour: area- and individual-level characteristics

  • Gavin Turrell (a1), Carla Patterson (a1), Brian Oldenburg (a1), Trish Gould (a1) and Marie-Andree Roy (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed