IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i14p7216-d589155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participants Attrition in a Longitudinal Study: The Malaysian Cohort Study Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Noraidatulakma Abdullah

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Arman Kamaruddin

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Ying-Xian Goh

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Raihannah Othman

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Andri Dauni

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Nazihah Abd Jalal

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Nurul Ain Mhd Yusuf

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Salywana A. Kamat

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Nor Hazlinawati Basri

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Rahman Jamal

    (UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

Abstract

The attrition rate of longitudinal study participation remains a challenge. To date, the Malaysian Cohort (TMC) study follow-up rate was only 42.7%. This study objective is to identify the cause of attrition among TMC participants and the measures to curb it. A total of 19,343 TMC participants from Kuala Lumpur and Selangor that was due for follow-up were studied. The two most common attrition reasons are undergoing medical treatment at another government or private health center (7.0%) and loss of interest in participating in the TMC project (5.1%). Those who were inclined to drop out were mostly Chinese, aged 50 years and above, unemployed, and had comorbidities during the baseline recruitment. We have also contacted 2183 participants for the home recruitment follow-up, and about 10.9% agreed to join. Home recruitment slightly improved the overall follow-up rate from 42.7% to 43.5% during the three-month study period.

Suggested Citation

  • Noraidatulakma Abdullah & Mohd Arman Kamaruddin & Ying-Xian Goh & Raihannah Othman & Andri Dauni & Nazihah Abd Jalal & Nurul Ain Mhd Yusuf & Salywana A. Kamat & Nor Hazlinawati Basri & Rahman Jamal, 2021. "Participants Attrition in a Longitudinal Study: The Malaysian Cohort Study Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-9, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7216-:d:589155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7216/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7216/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anand, Paul, 1995. "Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198774426.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stoyan V. Stoyanov & Svetlozar T. Rachev & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2012. "Metrization Of Stochastic Dominance Rules," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-22.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:552-560 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Soldatos, Gerasimos T., 1995. "Why People Tolerate Underground Economy and Tax Evasion?," MPRA Paper 58545, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Luca Zarri, 2010. "On social utility payoffs in games: a methodological comparison between Behavioural and Rational Game Theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 587-598, October.
    5. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Nadja Silberhorn & Lutz Hildebrandt, 2012. "Does umbrella branding really work? Investigating cross-category brand loyalty," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2012-028, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    7. Marc-Arthur Diaye & Michal Wong-Urdanivia, 2006. "A Simple Test of Richter-Rationality," Documents de recherche 06-01, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    8. S. Abu Turab Rizvi, 2001. "Preference Formation and the Axioms of Choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 141-159.
    9. Marc-Arthur Diaye & Michal Wong-Urdanivia, 2005. "A simple test of Richter-rationality," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00084390, HAL.
    10. Mandler, Michael, 2005. "Incomplete preferences and rational intransitivity of choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 255-277, February.
    11. Khalil, Elias, 2004. "Integrity, Shame and Self-Rationalization," Vassar College Department of Economics Working Paper Series 55, Vassar College Department of Economics.
    12. Heidelbach, Olaf, 2007. "Efficiency of selected risk management instruments: An empirical analysis of risk reduction in Kazakhstani crop production," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 40, number 92323.
    13. Mandeep K. Dhami & David R. Mandel, 2013. "How do defendants choose their trial court? Evidence for a heuristic processing account," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 552-560, September.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7216-:d:589155. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.