Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Factors associated with attrition in a longitudinal online study: results from the HaBIDS panel

Authors: Nicole Rübsamen, Manas K. Akmatov, Stefanie Castell, André Karch, Rafael T. Mikolajczyk

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Knowing about predictors of attrition in a panel is important to initiate early measures against loss of participants. We investigated attrition in both early and late phase of an online panel with special focus on preferences regarding mode of participation.

Methods

We used data from the HaBIDS panel that was designed to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding infections in the German general population. HaBIDS was divided into two phases: an initial phase when some participants could choose their preferred mode of participation (paper-and-pencil or online) and an extended phase when participants were asked to become members of an online panel that was not limited regarding its duration (i.e. participants initially preferring paper questionnaires switched to online participation). Using competing risks regression, we investigated two types of attrition (formal withdrawal and discontinuation without withdrawal) among online participants, separately for both phases. As potential predictors of attrition, we considered sociodemographic characteristics, physical and mental health as well as auxiliary information describing the survey process, and, in the extended phase, initial mode preference.

Results

In the initial phase, higher age and less frequent Internet usage predicted withdrawal, while younger age, higher stress levels, delay in returning the consent form, and need for receiving reminder emails predicted discontinuation. In the extended phase, only need for receiving reminder emails predicted discontinuation. Numbers of withdrawal in the extended phase were too small for analysis. Initial mode preference did not predict attrition in the extended phase. Besides age, there was no evidence of differential attrition by sociodemographic factors in any phase.

Conclusions

Predictors of attrition were similar in both phases of the panel, but they differed by type of attrition (withdrawal vs. discontinuation). Sociodemographic characteristics only played a minor role for both types of attrition. Need for receiving a reminder was the strongest predictor of discontinuation in any phase, but no predictor of withdrawal. We found predictors of attrition, which can be identified already in the early phase of a panel so that countermeasures (e.g. special incentives) can be taken.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Christensen H, Griffiths KM, Korten AE, Brittliffe K, Groves C. A comparison of changes in anxiety and depression symptoms of spontaneous users and trial participants of a cognitive behavior therapy website. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:e46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Couper MP, Alexander GL, Zhang N, Little RJ, Maddy N, M a N, et al. Engagement and retention: measuring breadth and depth of participant use of an online intervention. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12:e52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
AM AL-A, Klein B, Meyer D. Pretreatment attrition and formal withdrawal during treatment and their predictors: an exploratory study of the anxiety online data. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e152.CrossRef
6.
Gill S, Contreras O, Muñoz RF, Leykin Y. Participant retention in an automated online monthly depression rescreening program: patterns and predictors. Internet Interv. 2014;1:20–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Reinwand DA, Crutzen R, Elfeddali I, Schneider F, Schulz DN, Stanczyk NE, et al. Impact of educational level on study attrition and evaluation of web-based computer-tailored interventions: results from seven randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e228.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Lugtig P. Panel attrition: separating stayers, fast attriters, gradual attriters, and lurkers. Sociol Methods Res. 2014;43:699–723.CrossRef
9.
Blom AG, Gathmann C, Krieger U. Setting up an online panel representative of the general population: the German internet panel. Field Methods. 2015;27:391–408.CrossRef
10.
Frankel LL, Hillygus DS. Looking beyond demographics: panel attrition in the ANES and GSS. Polit Anal. 2014;22:336–53.CrossRef
11.
Bajardi P, Vespignani A, Funk S, Eames KT, Edmunds WJ, Turbelin C, et al. Determinants of follow-up participation in the internet-based European influenza surveillance platform Influenzanet. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Mann DR, Honeycutt T. Understanding the disability dynamics of youth: health condition and limitation changes for youth and their influence on longitudinal survey attrition. Demography. 2016;53:749–76
13.
Rübsamen N, Akmatov MK, Castell S, Karch A, Mikolajczyk RT. Comparison of response patterns in different survey designs: a longitudinal panel with mixed-mode and online-only design. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2017;14:4.
14.
15.
Thefeld W, Stolzenberg H, Bellach BM. The Federal Health Survey: response, composition of participants and non-responder analysis [in German]. Gesundheitswesen. 1999;61(Sonderheft 2):S57–61.PubMed
16.
Bech P. The WHO-five well-being index (WHO-5). Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
17.
Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24:385–96.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Sievers C, Akmatov MK, Kreienbrock L, Hille K, Ahrens W, Günther K, et al. Evaluation of a questionnaire to assess selected infectious diseases and their risk factors. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. 2014;57:1283–91.CrossRef
19.
20.
Wolkewitz M, Cooper BS, Bonten MJM, Barnett AG, Schumacher M. Interpreting and comparing risks in the presence of competing events. BMJ. 2014;349:g5060.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496.CrossRef
22.
Fu Z, Parikh CR, Zhou B. Penalized variable selection in competing risks regression. Lifetime Data Anal. 2016;23:353–76.
23.
24.
Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W. The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:964–74.CrossRefPubMed
25.
StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2011.
26.
Sardi L, Idri A, Fernández-Alemán JL. A systematic review of gamification in e-health. J Biomed Inform. 2017;71:31–48.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Wells T, Bailey JT, Link MW. Comparison of Smartphone and online computer survey administration. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2014;32:238–55.CrossRef
28.
Hoffmann W, Terschüren C, Holle R, Kamtsiuris P, Bergmann M, Kroke A, et al. The problem of response in epidemiological studies in Germany (part II). Gesundheitswesen. 2004;66:482–91.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
James JM, Bolstein R. The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opin Q. 1990;54:346.CrossRef
31.
Collins RL, Ellickson PL, Hays RD, Mccaffrey DF. Effects of incentive size and timing on response rates to a follow-up wave of a longitudinal mailed survey. Eval Rev. 2000;24:347–63.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Stang A, Jöckel KH. Studies with low response proportions may be less biased than studies with high response proportions. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:204–10.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Keiding N, Louis TA. Perils and potentials of self-selected entry to epidemiological studies and surveys. J R Stat Soc A. 2016;179:1–28.CrossRef
34.
Pearl J, Bareinboim E. External validity: from do-calculus to transportability across populations. Stat Sci. 2014;29:579–95.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Factors associated with attrition in a longitudinal online study: results from the HaBIDS panel
Authors
Nicole Rübsamen
Manas K. Akmatov
Stefanie Castell
André Karch
Rafael T. Mikolajczyk
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0408-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Statistical evaluation of adding multiple risk factors improves Framingham stroke risk score

Research article

Clinical patient registry recruitment and retention: a survey of patients in two chronic disease registries

Research article

A systematic review of studies with a representative sample of refugees and asylum seekers living in the community for participation in mental health research

Research article

Incorporating nonlinearity into mediation analyses

Research article

Does the association between adherence to statin medications and mortality depend on measurement approach? A retrospective cohort study

Research article

Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature