IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v40y1995i3p359-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who says yes? Identifying selection biases in a psychosocial intervention study of multiple sclerosis

Author

Listed:
  • Schwartz, Carolyn E.
  • Fox, Bernard H.

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to examine whether patients' sociodemographic and medical characteristics are associated with participation in a randomized controlled trial of two psychosocial interventions. After elimination of basic ineligibles from a registry of multiple sclerosis patients, 325 patients were sent a letter inviting participation in the randomized trial. Among those invited, 29% expressed an interest in participating, 19% scheduled an intake interview and 13% were actually randomized. x2 and logistic regression analyses were used to determine what factors were associated with successive stages of participation or non-participation in the study. Differential referral and participation rates could be traced in part to physician factors. With respect to patient factors, people were more likely to participate in the successive stages of recruitment if they had a higher median family income, lived a moderate distance from the hospital, and were disabled from working. Multivariate analyses of patient factors revealed that having a higher income and being disabled from work were the strongest predictors of participation, after adjusting for the effects of course of disease, disability status, and other sociodemographic predictors. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of potential sources of bias in the selection of eligible patients, as well as the role the investigator may play in highlighting or underplaying this selection bias. Suggestions are made to minimize the bias-generating barriers.

Suggested Citation

  • Schwartz, Carolyn E. & Fox, Bernard H., 1995. "Who says yes? Identifying selection biases in a psychosocial intervention study of multiple sclerosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 359-370, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:3:p:359-370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)E0092-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:3:p:359-370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.