Survey methodology and prevalence estimates from the SPAACE (surveying the prevalence of food allergy in all Canadian environments) study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Low income, less educated and immigrant populations are notorious for having low response rates in research studies. Therefore, it is not surprising that when attempting to estimate food allergy prevalence in Canada, the SCAAALAR study (Surveying Canadians to Assess the Prevalence of Common food Allergies and Attitudes towards food LAbeling and Risk), which attained a response rate of only 34.6% , underrepresented several vulnerable populations (those of low socioeconomic status, non post-secondary graduates, new Canadians, residents of the territories and Aboriginals).Objective: The objective of this thesis is two fold: 1) to determine an effective methodology for obtaining high response rates in the vulnerable populations not adequately represented in SCAAALAR and 2) to attain food allergy prevalence estimates for these vulnerable populations.Methods: To increase response rates and adequately sample the desired populations, a pilot study was conducted to evaluate the effect of unconditional incentives in vulnerable populations for a telephone survey. Households in low income/high immigrant postal codes were randomly selected and randomly assigned to receive either an unconditional incentive or no incentive. The difference in response rate and 95% confidence interval was calculated using a normal approximation to the difference of two binomial distributions. The pilot study informed the methodology employed in the SPAACE study (Surveying the8Prevalence of Food Allergy in All Canadian Environments), which subsequently addressed the second objective of this Thesis. SPAACE then estimated the prevalence of food allergy for those of low socioeconomic status, non post-secondary graduates, new Canadians, residents of the territories and Aboriginals. Prevalence estimates among vulnerable populations were compared to their comparator populations (i.e., those of high socioeconomic status, post-secondary graduates, individuals born in Canada, residents of the provinces and non-Aboriginals); between population differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using normal approximations to the difference of two binomial distributions.Results: The response rates were 38.4% and 31.4% for the incentive and non-incentive groups respectively, with a between group difference of 0.070 (-0.013, 0.15). The cooperation rates, which exclude non-contacts from the calculation, were 47.3% and 40.0% for the incentive and non-incentive group respectively, with a between group difference of 0.073 (-0.023, 0.17). Prevalence estimates for those of low socioeconomic status, new Canadians and Aboriginals were lower than their comparator population's prevalence (between population differences respectively: -2.44% (95% CI: -3.52%, -1.35%); -2.66% (95% CI: -3.5%, -1.82%); -2.17% (95% CI: -3.18%, -1.16%)) .Discussion: Although wide confidence intervals preclude definitive conclusions, our results suggest that unconditional incentives are an effective means of9increasing response rates in vulnerable populations for telephone surveys. Additionally, the results of SPAACE demonstrate that socioeconomic status, birthplace and ethnicity are associated with the prevalence of food allergy. These findings are indicative of potential lifestyle, cultural, and genetic factors that may influence the development of food allergy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,099 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».