Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2006

Recruiting Injection Drug Users: A Three-Site Comparison of Results and Experiences with Respondent-Driven and Targeted Sampling Procedures

Authors: William T. Robinson, Jan M. H. Risser, Shanell McGoy, Adam B. Becker, Hafeez Rehman, Mary Jefferson, Vivian Griffin, Marcia Wolverton, Stephanie Tortu

Published in: Journal of Urban Health | Special Issue 1/2006

Abstract

Several recent studies have utilized respondent-driven sampling (RDS) methods to survey hidden populations such as commercial sex-workers, men who have sex with men (MSM) and injection drug users (IDU). Few studies, however, have provided a direct comparison between RDS and other more traditional sampling methods such as venue-based, targeted or time/space sampling. The current study sampled injection drug users in three U.S. cities using RDS and targeted sampling (TS) methods and compared their effectiveness in terms of recruitment efficiency, logistics, and sample demographics. Both methods performed satisfactorily. The targeted method required more staff time per-recruited respondent and had a lower proportion of screened respondents who were eligible than RDS, while RDS respondents were offered higher incentives for participation.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2004. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005; Vol. 16.

Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS. 2005;19(2):S67–S72.PubMedCrossRef

Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36(4):416–430.CrossRef

Semaan S, Lauby J, Liebman J. Street and network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction interventions. AIDS Rev. 2002;4:213–223.PubMed

Coleman JS. Relational analysis: the study of social organization with survey methods. Human Organ. 1959;17:28–36.

Goodman L. Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat. 1961;32(1):148–170.CrossRef

Erickson BH. Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociol Method. 1979;10:276–302.CrossRef

Klovdahl A. Urban social networks: some methodological problems and possibilities. In: Kochen M, ed. The Small World. Norwood, NJ. ABLEX 1989;176–210.

Dodds PS, Muhamad R,Watts DS. An experimental study of search in global social networks. Science. 2002; 301(5634): 827–829.CrossRef

10.

Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD. Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Method. 2004;34:193–239.CrossRef

11.

Biernacki P, Waldorf D. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Methods Res. 1981;10(2):141–163.

12.

Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN, Booth RE, Watters JK. HIV seroprevalence among street-recruited injection drug and crack cocaine users in 16 U.S. municipalities. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(1):108–114.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Bluthenthal RN, Watters JW. Multimethod research from targeted sampling to HIV risk environments. In: Lambert EY, Ashery RS, Needle RH, eds. Qualitative Methods in Drug Abuse and HIV Research. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph. 1994;Vol. 157, pp 212–230.

14.

Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174–199.CrossRef

15.

Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 2002;49(1):11–34.CrossRef

16.

Heckathorn DD, Semaan S, Broadhead RS, Hughes JJ. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18–25. AIDS Behav. 2002;6(1):55–67.CrossRef

17.

Wang J, Carlson RG, Falck RS, Siegal HA, Rahman A, Li L. Respondent-driven sampling to recruit MDMA users: a methodological assessment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;78:147–157.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Abdul-Quader AS, Heckathorn DD, McKnight C, et al. Effectiveness of respondent-driven sampling for recruiting drug users in New York City: findings from a pilot study. J Urban Health. 2006;83(3):459–476.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Recruiting Injection Drug Users: A Three-Site Comparison of Results and Experiences with Respondent-Driven and Targeted Sampling Procedures
Authors: William T. Robinson
Jan M. H. Risser
Shanell McGoy
Adam B. Becker
Hafeez Rehman
Mary Jefferson
Vivian Griffin
Marcia Wolverton
Stephanie Tortu
Publication date: 01-11-2006
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Urban Health / Issue Special Issue 1/2006
Print ISSN: 1099-3460
Electronic ISSN: 1468-2869
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9100-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Recruiting Injection Drug Users: A Three-Site Comparison of Results and Experiences with Respondent-Driven and Targeted Sampling Procedures

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2006

Implementation and Analysis of Respondent Driven Sampling: Lessons Learned from the Field

Variance Estimation, Design Effects, and Sample Size Calculations for Respondent-Driven Sampling

Assessment of Respondent Driven Sampling for Recruiting Female Sex Workers in Two Vietnamese Cities: Reaching the Unseen Sex Worker

Methods to Recruit Hard-to-Reach Groups: Comparing Two Chain Referral Sampling Methods of Recruiting Injecting Drug Users Across Nine Studies in Russia and Estonia

Exploring Barriers to ‘Respondent Driven Sampling’ in Sex Worker and Drug-Injecting Sex Worker Populations in Eastern Europe

Respondent-Driven Sampling in Participatory Research Contexts: Participant-Driven Recruitment