IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i18p9928-d639978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Two Different Recruitment Procedures (Random vs. Volunteer Selection) on the Results of Seroepidemiological Study (SARS-CoV-2)

Author

Listed:
  • Maksymilian Gajda

    (Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland)

  • Małgorzata Kowalska

    (Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland)

  • Jan Eugeniusz Zejda

    (Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland)

Abstract

The proper recruitment of subjects for population-based epidemiological studies is critical to the external validity of the studies and, above all, to the sound and correct interpretation of the findings. Since 2020, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been a new factor that has been, additionally, hindering studies. Therefore, the aim of our study is to compare demographic, socio-economic, health-related characteristics and the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 infection occurrence among the randomly selected group and the group composed of volunteers. We compare two groups of participants from the cross-sectional study assessing the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which was conducted in autumn 2020, in three cities of the Silesian Voivodeship in Poland. The first group consisted of a randomly selected, nationally representative, age-stratified sample of subjects (1167 participants, “RG” group) and was recruited using personal invitation letters and postal addresses obtained from a national registry. The second group (4321 volunteers, “VG” group) included those who expressed their willingness to participate in response to an advertisement published in the media. Compared with RG subjects, volunteers were more often females, younger and professionally active, more often had a history of contact with a COVID-19 patient, post-contact nasopharyngeal swab, fewer comorbidities, as well as declared the occurrence of symptoms that might suggest infection with SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, in the VG group the percentage of positive IgG results and tuberculosis vaccination were higher. The findings of the study confirm that surveys limited to volunteers are biased. The presence of the bias may seriously affect and distort inference and make the generalizability of the results more than questionable. Although effective control over selection bias in surveys, including volunteers, is virtually impossible, its impact on the survey results is impossible to predict. However, whenever possible, such surveys could include a small component of a random sample to assess the presence and potential effects of selection bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Maksymilian Gajda & Małgorzata Kowalska & Jan Eugeniusz Zejda, 2021. "Impact of Two Different Recruitment Procedures (Random vs. Volunteer Selection) on the Results of Seroepidemiological Study (SARS-CoV-2)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-9, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:18:p:9928-:d:639978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9928/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9928/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafał Jakub Bułdak & Elżbieta Woźniak-Grygiel & Marta Wąsik & Janusz Kasperczyk & Ewa Gawrylak-Dryja & Renata Mond-Paszek & Adam Konka & Karina Badura-Brzoza & Martyna Fronczek & Marlena Golec & Mateu, 2021. "SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Screening in Healthcare Workers in Non-Infectious Hospitals in Two Different Regions of Southern Poland (Upper Silesia and Opole Voivodeships): A Prospective Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-15, April.
    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. Izabela Korona-Głowniak & Michał Mielnik & Martyna Podgajna & Ewelina Grywalska & Marek Hus & Katarzyna Matuska & Beata Wojtysiak-Duma & Dariusz Duma & Andrzej Glowniak & Anna Malm, 2022. "SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Workers before the Vaccination in Poland: Evolution from the First to the Second Pandemic Outbreak," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.

    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:18:p:9928-:d:639978. 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.