IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate

Author

Listed:
  • Sian Harrison
  • Fiona Alderdice
  • Maria A Quigley

Abstract

Background: Prevalence estimates from surveys with low response rates are prone to non-response bias if respondents and non-respondents differ on the outcome of interest. This study assessed the external validity of prevalence estimates of selected maternity indicators from four national maternity surveys in England which had similar survey methodology but different response rates. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted using data from the national maternity surveys in 2006 (response rate = 63%), 2010 (response rate = 54%), 2014 (response rate = 47%) and 2018 (response rate = 29%). Unweighted and (for the 2014 and 2018 surveys) weighted survey prevalence estimates (with 95%CIs) of caesarean section, preterm birth, low birthweight and breastfeeding initiation were validated against population-based estimates from routine data. Results: The external validity of the survey estimates varied across surveys and by indicator. For caesarean section, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates included the population-based estimates for all surveys. For preterm birth and low birthweight, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for the 2006 and 2010 surveys (or the 2014 survey for preterm birth). For breastfeeding initiation, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for any survey. For all indicators, the effect of weighting (on the 2014 and 2018 survey estimates) was mostly a shift towards the population-based estimates, yet the 95%CIs for the weighted survey estimates of breastfeeding initiation did not include the population-based estimates. Conclusion: There were no clear differences in the external validity of prevalence estimates according to survey response rate suggesting that prevalence estimates may still be valid even when survey response rates are low. The survey estimates tended to become closer to the population-based estimates when weights were applied, yet the effect was insufficient for breastfeeding initiation estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Sian Harrison & Fiona Alderdice & Maria A Quigley, 2020. "External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242815
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242815
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242815&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242815?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Hendra & Aaron Hill, 2019. "Rethinking Response Rates: New Evidence of Little Relationship Between Survey Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias," Evaluation Review, , vol. 43(5), pages 307-330, October.
    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. Gross, Deborah & Bettencourt, Amie F. & Holmes Finch, W. & Plesko, Corinne & Paulson, Rachael & Singleton, Demetria L., 2022. "Developing an equitable measure of parent engagement in early childhood education for urban schools," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Rana Orhan & John Middleton & Thomas Krafft & Katarzyna Czabanowska, 2021. "Climate Action at Public Health Schools in the European Region," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Burt S. Barnow & David H. Greenberg, 2019. "Special Issue Editors’ Essay," Evaluation Review, , vol. 43(5), pages 231-265, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0242815. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.